Flc the cognitive principle of christian theology by Oscar Mendoza Orbegoso

HOME PAGE

HOME PAGE Where do Christians get the information about what they believe? How do theologians know whether the doctrines they teach are made up of divine truth? For centuries believers have assumed that the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the origin of Christian knowledge. Over time, other sources were added to Scripture, such as philosophy, science, tradition and experience. With the advent of modernity, philosophy and science led many Christian theologians to the idea that the documents comprising Scripture came out of human thinking and tradition. If the modern view was correct, Christian theology had no cognitive foundation; it was left groundless. Is there unique truth in Christianity? Do Christian doctrines describe real things to our minds? Or are they the result of imagination flowing through the traditions into which we are born? Is the modern view of the Bible’s origin the final word on the matter? Or are the views of the classical church and of contemporary evangelicals viable in postmodern times? Should we think about the origin of Christian knowledge—the revelation and inspiration of Scripture—by constructing a new model to lead us beyond the limitations of present ideas? In The Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology: A Hermeneutical Study od the Revelation and Inspiration of the Bible, Canale addresses not primarily the academic community, but the thinking community of the church, including administrators, pastors, theology students, and lay persons interested in theological issues. He guides them step by step to understand the classical, modern, and evangelical models of revelation and inspiration by analyzing the hermeneutical presuppositions from which they come. The reader will see that each of these models fail in some way to integrate either what the Bible says about itself, or the facts of what we find on the written page. Then by using the same hermeneutical presuppositions biblical authors assumed when writing Scripture Canale develops an alternate model able to harmonize what Scripture teaches about itself with its actual characteristics as written work (phenomena of Scripture). The book ends by considering the consequences that the new historical cognitive model of revelation inspiration has for the interpretation of Scripture and its truthfulness. For the past twenty years, Fernando L. Canale, PhD, has served as professor of theology and philosophy at Andrews University’s Theological Seminary. He is also the author of numerous articles and three other books: Toward a Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions, Back to Revelation-Inspiration: In Search of New Foundations, and Basic Elements of Christian Theology: Scripture Replacing Tradition. He lives in Berrien Springs, Michigan, with his wife, Mirta.

HOME PAGE

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE of CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: A Hermeneutical Study of the Revelation and Inspiration of the Bible

Fernando Canale

Andrews University Lithothec 2005

HOME PAGE

I dedicate this book to my wife Mirta, her wisdom, prayers, patience and beauty have motivated and encouraged me to study, research, and write this book for my students

HOME PAGE “...In The Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology Canale brings a practical, groundbreaking Adventist introduction to this extremely important doctrine… .Through a carefully outlined and progressive discussion,...Canale leads the reader...to understand both the complex issues inherent in the subject, as well as the down-to-earth difference one’s view of it makes in theology, preaching, leadership, view of authority, and sense of church mission. This engaging, easy to read work...builds confidence in the Word of God." –Larry Lichtenwalter, Ph.D., Senior Pastor of the Village Church of Seventh-day Adventists, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

“In the light of his penetrating analysis of the presuppositional structures of the classical and liberal models of revelation-inspiration, Dr. Fernando Canale has effectively exposed their limitation… .His new model does full justice to the balanced divine-human role God took in the revelationinspiration process and so makes a major contribution to the on-going debate. He clearly shows how his new model is relevant to a post-Kantian, post-modern world view. It is presented in a user-friendly way with illustrations. I consider it a classic destined to have a persuasive impact on this foundational issue of hermeneutics.” –Norman R. Gulley, Ph.D., Research Professor in Systematic Theology, Southern Adventist University.

“Philosophy can be an excellent handmaiden for theology. It may, along with fresh biblical interpretation, provide solutions to long standing problems. In this case, it helps professor Canale come up with a new way of understanding the dialectic of the divine and human dimensions of Scripture. It enables him, with a sounder understanding of God, to approach the problem from a hermeneutical perspective which assumes a temporal-

HOME PAGE historical conception of the divine nature and makes it easier to understand God's actions in history such as revelation and inspiration. The work is comprehensive in breadth and profound in depth.” –Clark H. Pinnock, Ph.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, McMaster Divinity College.

“This is a carefully written study of the most fundamental Christian doctrine. The author has rightly discerned some problems which have plagued the formulation of this doctrine for ages… . With clarity of language and excellent organization, Dr. Canale confronts ambiguity. With careful definition of concepts and precise distinction between them, Dr. Canale seeks to reduce confusion. His unswerving faithfulness to the Bible helps him to avoid the extremes of narrowly based models. There is a need for such a work in SDA theology, and Christian theology as well. Dr Canale's The Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology addresses that need.” –Miroslav M. Kis, Ph.D., Professor of Ethics, Chair of the Theology and Christian Philosophy Department, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University.

“… .I find Canale's study persuasive and illuminating. Such a foundational ground-breaking work is long (almost two millennia!) overdue, and will undoubtedly prove to be a watershed in theological discussion at the turn of the new millennium.” –Richard M. Davidson, Ph.D., J. N. Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Chair of the Old Testament Department, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University. "In this book Dr. Canale offers a much-needed antidote to the partisan

HOME PAGE debates over revelation, inspiration and hermeneutics. The book is sober and carefully reasoned, as one would expect from a philosopher, yet there is a consistent attempt to take exegesis of the Bible seriously. No one will read this volume for entertainment, but for those who care deeply about the Word of God, this book will provide lasting benefit. I highly recommend it." â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Jon Paulien, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University.

HOME PAGE

GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SECTION 1: GROUNDWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. What Are You Talking About? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. General Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3. Introduction to the Study of Special Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4. The Biblical Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5. What is Knowledge? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6. The Possibility of Revelation: Nature and Supernature . . . . . . . 87 SECTION 2: MODELS OF INTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Models as Tools for Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. The Classical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. The Turning Point Between the Classical and Modern Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. The Modern Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. The Evangelical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111 113 121 139 153 181

SECTION 3: THE HISTORICAL COGNITIVE MODEL . . . . . . . . 225 12. The Postmodern Shift: The Possibility of a New Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 13. Biblical Hermeneutical Presuppositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 14. Methodological Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 15. Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Role in Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 16. Revelation Incarnated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 17. Patterns of Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 18. Inspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390 19. Hermeneutical Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 20. The Truthfulness of Scripture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

HOME PAGE

PREFACE

Where do Christians get the information about what they believe? How do theologians know whether the doctrines they teach are made up of divine truth? For centuries believers have assumed that the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the origin of Christian knowledge. Over time, other sources were added to Scripture, such as philosophy, science, tradition and experience. With the advent of modernity, philosophy and science led many Christian theologians to the idea that the documents comprising Scripture came out of human thinking and tradition. If the modern view was correct, Christian theology had no cognitive foundation; it was left groundless. By the end of the twentieth century, the conviction that religion is a matter of human tradition had firmly entrenched itself in postmodern thought and culture. The prevailing belief seemed to be that as humans relate to their finitude and mortality, their imagination creates scenarios that comfort them in sorrows and death. Even many Christian believers relate to their religion today as a matter of cultural tradition, not as a matter of divine truth or as an accurate description of reality. Is there unique truth in Christianity? Do Christian doctrines describe real things to our minds? Or are they the result of imagination flowing through the traditions into which we are born? Is the modern view of the Bibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s origin the final word on the matter? Or are the views of the classical church and of contemporary evangelicals viable in postmodern times? Should we think about

HOME PAGE 2

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

the origin of Christian knowledge— the revelation and inspiration of Scripture— by constructing a new model to lead us beyond the limitations of present ideas? As I started thinking and teaching on these issues, I soon realized that there were no textbooks on revelation and inspiration that would respond to the present postmodern situation. Those few available only rehashed the old theories. For example, theologians from the modern school of thought reject the possibility that the Bible came from God by pointing to Scriptural inconsistencies they call errors. If Scripture errs, it cannot be divinely inspired. To them, divine inspiration can only mean verbal inspiration— the idea modern theologians hear from their evangelical colleagues that the Holy Spirit produced the actual words of Scripture through the human writers. In other words, the only written considerations I could find about revelationinspiration— the Bible’s origin— were from modern theologians, which began with the actual facts of the biblical text (also known as the phenomena of Scripture) and thereby rejected its claim of divine origin; or from classical and evangelical theologians, who began with the Bible’s claim about itself (the doctrine of Scripture) and reasoned their way to the belief that the book contains no errors at all. Trying to avoid such lopsided thinking, I took a different approach, beginning not from the inerrancy controversy, nor based on either the doctrine or phenomena of Scripture, but by considering both at once. In the present work, The Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology: A Postmodern View of Revelation-Inspiration, I attempt to bring the two starting points together. This book begins with the postmodern conviction that “to know is to interpret.” Together you, the reader, and I will study the classical, modern, and evangelical models of revelation and inspiration by analyzing the hermeneutical presuppositions from which they come. We will find that each of these models fails in some way to integrate either what the Bible says about itself, or the facts of what we find on the written page. Once that is complete, we will apply the same analysis of presuppositions to the Bible itself in order to develop an alternative model of revelation-inspiration: the historical-cognitive model. Only once we have considered all available models and have developed an alternative

HOME PAGE PREFACE

will we consider the issue of Scripture’s reliability in postmodern times. Hopefully, by so doing we will escape the inerrancy debate, and challenge the generalized notion that Christianity is based on mere legend we have inherited through tradition. The issue before us is the starting place of Christian theology. How we understand the origin of the Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology— the Bible— will determine the contents of our theology, and consequently the unity and action of the Christian church. This work is based on two of my earlier books, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions,1 and Back to Revelation-Inspiration: Searching for the Cognitive Foundations of Christian Theology in a Postmodern World.2 Unlike those works, in the present study I am not addressing primarily the academic community, but the thinking community of the church, including administrators, pastors, theology students, and lay persons interested in theological issues. Because I could not find a textbook that covered all the issues effectively, I prepared one of my own for my seminary class on revelation, inspiration, and the interpretation of Scripture. I finished most of the manuscript by July 2001 and published it as “a work in progress” with only seventeen chapters, thanks to the hard work of my then-graduate assistant, Karen K. Abrahamson, who carefully edited and formatted the manuscript for the printers. Since that time I have finished writing the last three chapters, and gained valuable input from my students, who used the book to prepare themselves for examinations. They picked up no few inconsistencies and typos that needed correction. Some, particularly Nathan Robinson, took time to write them in their copies and shared them with me. My secretary, Marilyn Bender, had the thankless job of proofreading the manuscript I was using as a textbook for my students. As proofreading was slow, I continued to publish the unfinished and uncorrected manuscripts each year. By the fall of 2003, Karen had taken grater responsibilities and I was interviewing students to fill the graduated assistant position. One of the students I interviewed, Tomm Lemon, had already taken the class for which the textbook was written. When I asked about his editing skills, he responded with confidence

HOME PAGE 4

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

and began editing the book to make it more reader-friendly, continuing even after graduating and moving to Idaho to pastor two rural congregations. I want to express my gratitude to Tomm for his excellent job. As a result of his contribution, I find this book much easier to read and more accessible to a wider audience. My gratitude also goes to Samuel Millen who in short notice proofread the manuscript for publication. It is my prayer that students of theology, pastors, and motivated believers may find in these pages a helpful introduction to the theological understanding of the revelation and inspiration of Scripture. My gratitude also goes to Dr. Miroslav Kis, Chair of the Theology and Christian Philosophy Department, for his continuous support and friendship throughout our years together; and to the administration of the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary for implementing the semester research policy without which I could not have produced this work. May all honor and glory be given to God, the Author and Revealer of Truth and Grace. F .L .C.

Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001.

HOME PAGE

SECTION ONE GROUNDWORK The study of revelation-inspiration is a complex enterprise. As theologians study the origin of Scripture, they must consider many issues. Later in this book we will examine the major views on revelation and inspiration, but before we can do that, we must understand the foundations of the issue first. In Chapter 1, we will address methodological issues, clarify the subject matter, and consider why we are discussing the topic in the first place. Once that is complete, we must discuss general revelation, first to distinguish it from natural theology and second, to uncover the role it serves in the interpretation of revelation-inspiration; this we do in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 introduces the study of special revelation by examining the concepts of revelation and inspiration, and uncovering presuppositions with which theologians consider them. There we will discuss the theoretical nature of any doctrine of revelation-inspiration and identify the data on which such a doctrine builds. At that point we will choose and describe a methodology with which we will analyze the data and interpret ideas about revelation and inspiration. The biblical claim of its own origin is the topic of Chapter 4. Two statements, in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21, we will analyze to understand the problem of revelation-inspiration. Chapter 5 is a consideration of the cognitive nature of revelationinspiration; there we will introduce ourselves to a basic description of the structure of knowledge, highlighting the role of our presuppositions. One set of presuppositions that has particular bearing on revelation-inspiration is that of nature and supernature; Chapter 6 explores how these two aspects of reality have been interpreted by Christian theologians over the centuries.

HOME PAGE

1. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

§1. BREAKING THE ICE Have you ever gone back to your hometown after a prolonged absence? Good friends, no doubt, threw you a welcome-home party. This happened to me when I returned to Argentina after four years of being away. I had been looking forward to this reunion for a very long time. After the initial excitement and reminiscence of “the good old days,” the conversation turned to more recent events. Although a few moments earlier everyone had received me with open arms, I began to feel strangely out of place. Why? A few months later that strange feeling left as mysteriously as it had come. But I still couldn’t answer why I had felt so out of place in my hometown and surrounded by my best friends. Looking back, it dawned on me that at the welcome party my friends had started to talk about things with which I was unfamiliar. I felt out of place because I could not understand their conversations. Fortunately, in time, I became familiar with the issues and events they were talking about, and the uncomfortable feeling of alienation disappeared. I share this experience with you, the reader, because I suspect you may experience a similar feeling of alienation as you embark on your study of theology. You have dreamed with excitement about these studies. Perhaps in answer to a call to ministry, you decided to attend a seminary, or you have

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

purchased a few books to learn more about the Bible and become more effective in your witness for the Lord. So you are very excited and ready to go. But as you begin to read your excitement may start to dwindle; you may begin to feel confused, out of place, even alienated. Please don’t be discouraged! Think of me, the writer of these pages, as your friend. I will do my best to explain any unfamiliar ideas or terms. However, even my best efforts will not always keep you from feeling lost. The key to overcoming this discomfort is perseverance. Bear with me and you will become familiar with the issues surrounding revelation-inspiration. Traditionally, Scripture has enjoyed a place of authority in Christian theology and the church’s experience. But during the last two centuries, its position has come under fire. Now, the trustworthiness of Scripture is questioned not merely by philosophers and theologians, but by people of every background and discipline. Faithful pastors and informed believers should be able to give a sound answer to the question, Can we believe the Bible ? The issues surrounding any question of the reliability of Scripture are complex. Theories and arguments have reached a high level of sophistication and are expressed in a technical terms that confuse even theologians. But don’t worry. I will do my best to make you feel at home! Just stick with me long enough to become familiar with these issues. As you read, you may wonder what on earth I am talking about. Just remember that you are pursuing a lofty goal. Our Savior Himself requested that we be faithful servants, using all the talents with which he endowed us - including the ability to think abstractly. Moreover, the apostle Peter encouraged Christians to always be “ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you”(1 Peter 3:15).1 Since our faith is based on the trustworthiness of the Bible, it is our responsibility as Christians to understand revelation-inspiration, and thus be prepared to give a sound answer when we are questioned about the source and validity of Scripture.

HOME PAGE 8

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

§2. PAVING THE WAY Before exploring how Scripture was conceived and written, we must take a preparatory methodological detour.

1. The Complexity of Theology. Christian theology is a serious search for truth. The many issues involved and their presentations have led to several approaches to Bible study. A casual reading of the Bible immediately reveals not only different literary forms and styles, but also a broad range of concepts and issues— all revealing the complexity of its theology. Because of this complexity, Bible students have developed many different theological disciplines, for instance, textual criticism, literary criticism, biblical exegesis, biblical theology, archaeology, history of antiquity, church history, theological history, and systematic theology. As you read theological literature, try to be aware of the differences between these various disciplines, and focus on adapting to their different requirements and methods. Frequently, students borrow study methods from disciplines with which they are familiar, and apply them to other areas for which those methods are unsuited. Obviously, this only serves to muddle issues that are already complex. For example, could we study architecture with the methods applied in literature, or vice versa? Actually, we could— but the results would be less than satisfactory. Why? Because when we apply methods of study to fields for which they are unsuited, we almost always distort the issue under investigation. The study of revelation-inspiration belongs to the area of theological studies known as systematic theology. Thus, students should approach this study from systematic theology’s perspective and methods. To avoid using improper approaches to the topic, students need to obtain an introductory understanding of (1) the area under study, (2) the nature of the problem, and (3) the methodology necessary for understanding revelation-inspiration. These issues will be pursued in our next section (§2.2) and in Chapter 3.

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

2. Area of Study. The main building blocks used in the task of biblical theology are concrete - that is, they exist in the real world. Among them we find, for example, languages, dates, names, places, passages, manuscripts, and various archaeological objects. In these areas, a person needs an exceptionally good memory for mastery, while analytical skills are of little use. Systematic theology, on the other hand, works with abstract building blocks, namely, ideas, their meanings, and their relationships. For a systematic theologian, an average memory is generally sufficient, while proficiency in working with ideas and their logical implications is essential. Most students of the Bible are actually better trained in the sciences than in the humanities. Consequently, they are better equipped to work with concrete information than with ideas. While memorization works well with many disciplines, it is actually counterproductive when studying systematic theology. If you rely too much on your memory, you may pass tests on the subject, but still fail to comprehend the ideas in question and their relationships to each other. To successfully understand systematic theology, you must first acknowledge that ideas exist and that they must be addressed on their own turf and according to their own nature. With practice, as proficiency in dealing with ideas increases, you will begin to feel more comfortable with the abstract issues treated in this book. Moreover, if you become able to deal with ideas well, you have many advantages in ministry as well. Pastors and evangelists do not deal primarily with facts and information, but with people. The same process of understanding ideas applies to dealing with individuals as well. Human beings are affected by many complex ideas that influence their actions. Therefore, our interpersonal relationships depend a great deal on our ability to understand and evaluate varying ideas and ideologies.

3. Learning Strategy. Attempting to learn by simple memorization is impossible in this area

HOME PAGE 10

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

because memory does not touch our process of understanding. A brief explanation of the learning process involved in abstract thinking may prove beneficial for students with little or no training in systematic theology. As you know, one word may have varying, even vastly different meanings. Systematic theology has no short supply of such words. At times, theologians attach new definitions to already existing words. Occasionally, when no existing word lends itself to a given idea, they create a new word. In either case, you must be focused and on your guard when studying systematic theology. The conceptual nature of theology calls for some specific learning strategies (Figure 1). The following steps may be useful for studying revelation-inspiration. First, begin by identifying a word used in a technical or unfamiliar sense. Second, try to grasp the meaning of that word as it is used in that context. Third, restate IDENTIFY the technical words GRASP the meaning of ideas EXPRESS the meaning of technical ideas in common speech DISCOVER the connections between ideas

Figure 1: Learning Strategies

that technical meaning in common, everyday language (this will help you master and remember both the concept and the word being studied). Finally, determine the natural way in which the ideas and words you are studying connect with each other and the broader ideological context to which they belong.

4. Defining Revelation-Inspiration. Now we must move into the subject matter of our study, revelation-inspiration. The word revelation has various shades of meaning. When capitalized, Revelation often refers to the last book in the Christian New Testament. It can also refer to Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s communication with human beings or signify an astonishing

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

disclosure made by one human being to another. In this book, however, the word revelation will be used technically; it refers here to the process by which the information present in Scripture came into the possession of the human writer. In other words, revelation points to how Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideas came to the mind of the biblical writer. Inspiration has many meanings as well. In everyday language, we use the term inspiration to refer to the intellect, the action or power of moving emotions, or to the results of such movings. Thus, we speak of an inspired preacher or of an inspired sermon, of an inspired poet and his or her inspired poems. In our study, the term inspiration will also be used technically; here it refers to the process by which the biblical writers put into writing the contents, ideas, and information they received through the prior process of revelation. Remember, biblical authors and Christian theologians use the terms revelation and inspiration in broad and flexible ways. One cannot ignore this wider usage or become confused because of it. At the same time, as a student you must recognize and differentiate between technical and nontechnical meanings. This is vital because it will enable us to use the terms revelation and inspiration in the restricted sense of how the Bible was written. As you will understand later, this restricted meaning does not conflict with more flexible biblical and theological usages. The technical definitions of revelation and inspiration indicate that Scripture was written in two steps (Figure 2). Again, revelation refers to the process by which God gave the contents of Scripture to the biblical writer, while inspiration is the process of putting ideas and information into written form. Attempts to explain the origin of Scripture that disregard either one of these two steps will be unclear and will produce hazy, unsatisfactory theories. Thus, whenever speaking about how the Bible was written, we must always use both ideas .

HOME PAGE 12

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

Figure 2: Definition of Revelation-Inspiration

Anyone who has been a student is familiar with the experience of writing term papers. This experience, by analogy, can help us understand the process of revelation and inspiration. Producing a term paper requires at least two steps. First, students need to know the subject about which he or she will write; this step corresponds to revelation. After the subject matter is clear in their minds, students produce a written report; this step corresponds to inspiration. The activities involved in each step are different; yet, in their differences, they are complementary. This process is not unlike the biblical writersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; methodology. Simply, they came to know (revelation), and wrote it down (inspiration).

5. Focusing on the Issue. When interviewed by the press, basketball players frequently underline an obvious fact: To win ball games, teams need to stay focused. When studying revelation-inspiration, the same need to focus on the issue is crucial. Otherwise, questions regarding the origin of Scripture become entangled with those of authority, apologetics, and interpretation (hermeneutics). Indeed, revelation-inspiration is closely related to these areas, making it all the more

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

necessary to distinguish between them. Focusing on revelation-inspiration requires more than just a brief definition of the subject matter. It requires that we come to understand why the study of the origin of Scripture should not be confused with these other issues. When students fail to distinguish between these vastly different fields of theological inquiry, their understanding of each becomes foggy. a. Distinguishing Revelation-Inspiration from Authority. The issue of authority revolves around a simple question: Who has the last say? In other words, who has the power to settle any and all disputes? Authority is power. Power gives its holder the right to provide the final, correct answer to debated questions. Authority and power are closely related even in biblical language. In theology, the issue of authority involves a similar question: Who ultimately settles issues of doctrine and life? For centuries, the church exercised that authority; Roman Catholic tradition still claims to have it. In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther challenged the power of the church by suggesting that the final authority in Christianity should be Scripture rather than the church. Today, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the dispute continues. Wolfhart Pannenberg, a notable German theologian, summarizes the core of the CatholicProtestant controversy over authority: “Protestant theology used scripture to show that church doctrine should be open to criticism and that it had departed from the witness of scripture. Roman Catholic theology pointed to the many voices in scripture which cannot be harmonized without help, so that an authority that can expound and decide is essential.”2 How does the issue of authority relate to the question of revelationinspiration? Those who say the Bible is the highest authority in Christian theology must justify their claim. Protestant and evangelical Christians generally argue that Scripture has final and absolute authority in theology and church life because God Himself inspired it – because the words of Scripture are the words of God. Consequently, in evangelical traditions the issues of revelation-inspiration and authority are intertwined. However, scientifically trained believers ask, How can we verify the biblical

HOME PAGE 14

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

claim of divine inspiration? Moreover, what is inspiration, and how does it relate to truth? Showing great sensitivity to these questions, Pannenberg suggests that we cannot settle the truth of Scripture before verifying its claims.3 Thus, we cannot establish the authority of Scripture by its inspiration. In this view, authority lies more on the side of scientific reasoning. In other words, the Bible is authoritative because its ideas can be shown to be true, regardless of whether those ideas came directly from God. Thus, in this view, the issue of revelation-inspiration and the issue of authority are not essentially related. These two views are contrasted in Figure 3. Classical Protestant view: Revelation-inspiration grounds the authority of Scripture. The issue of revelation-inspiration and the issue of authority blend.

Modern Protestant view: The truth in Scripture grounds its authority. The issue of revelation-inspiration and the issue of authority are not essentially related.

Figure 3: Revelation-Inspiration and Authority How, then, do these two different views affect the study of revelationinspiration? The conservative Protestant assertion that a connection exists between the issues of inspiration and authority is a positive contribution. However, failure to distinguish between the two sometimes leads to a superficial treatment of revelation-inspiration and to an overemphasis on how it affects the Bibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s authority. Liberal Protestantism clearly distinguishes between these matters. However, the implication that Scriptureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s divine origin is not relevant to the issue of authority seriously undermines that authority. Since the possibility

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

that God communicated knowledge and information directly to the prophets (cf. chap. 10) is rejected, Scripture is invested with merely human and communal authority. Clearly, revelation-inspiration is never unrelated to the authority of Scripture. Any position that disconnects authority and revelation-inspiration is not biblical (cf. chap. 4). If God was involved in the writing of Scripture, his authority is inescapably linked to its authority. Any further analysis of the relationship between revelation-inspiration and authority is not necessary here. Right now, you need only to be aware of the connection between the two. When you have mastered this distinction, the issue of revelation-inspiration will come into sharper focus. The following methodological tracks (Figure 4) will help you with the relationship between inspiration and authority.

INCLUSIVE APPROACH TO AUTHORITY

(1) The question of authority should be answered from both, the doctrine of revelation-inspiration, and the verification of the truth of Scripture.

(2) Revelation-inspiration takes priority over authority.

Figure 4: Methodological Tracks First, students of theology should resolve the question of authority by following an approach that includes both revelation-inspiration and the verification of the truth of Scripture. Neither can settle the issue of authority by itself. The authority of Scripture flows simultaneously from its divine origin and from the truth of its contents. In other words, Scripture is trustworthy both because it was revealed and inspired by God, and because its words and ideas

HOME PAGE 16

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

can be demonstrated to be accurate. People usually relate better to one or the other of these two approaches. Those who already believe are more likely to be impressed by the divine origin of Scripture, while non-Christians are more likely to follow its words because those words are true. In theological analysis, however, we must ground the authority of Scripture on both approaches. The second step in understanding the relationship between revelationinspiration and authority is to acknowledge the natural distinction between them. We must make certain that revelation-inspiration has priority over authority. We should affirm the disciplinary priority of revelation-inspiration over the question of authority. In other words, we must first answer the question of how the Bible came to be. Only then will we be ready to evaluate its repercussions in the area of its authority. Simply, we have to know where it came from before we decide how closely we follow it. b. Distinguishing Revelation-Inspiration from Apologetics. Apologetics is a word rarely used in common language. We frequently use the word apology meaning “to confess, repent, or excuse one’s behavior.” In theology, however, apology means “a defense of one’s position.” During the second century A.D., “a number of Christian writers took upon themselves the task of defending their faith in the face of false accusations.”4 Because their main purpose was to defend Christianity from various attacks, historians call them “the apologists.”5 The task of defense has continued ever since and by the eighteenth century the term apologetics described a theological discipline.6 Briefly, apologetics is the rational grounding and defense of Christianity. The task of apologetics as a theological discipline needs some clarification. Richard A. Muller explains that “the discipline of apologetic theology represents the logical and rational defense of the principles and truths of the Christian religion. The topics of apologetics, therefore, relate directly to the contents both of philosophical and of doctrinal theology, with the intention of manifesting those contents to be believable and even compelling in the face of skepticism or disbelief.”7

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

This explanation assumes correctly that apologetics requires “the prior development of philosophical and doctrinal theology.”8 Thus, a belief must exist before there is a need to defend or ground it. Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions have frequently approached apologetics as a rational enterprise with many shapes and forms. Within some groups of conservative American evangelicals, one of the tasks of apologetics is to affirm the divine inspiration of the Bible. To these believers, God’s authorship of Scripture, generally understood as verbal inspiration (§55.1), plays a prominent role in establishing the reliability of Scripture. Unfortunately, this emphasis concentrates on the defense of inspiration to the detriment of a full understanding of what divine revelation-inspiration actually means. Concerning apologetics, the study of revelation-inspiration requires a very simple methodological rule: total disengagement of revelation-inspiration from apologetics. Moreover, as we study revelation-inspiration, we should not entertain ulterior, defensive motives. The study of Scripture’s origin does not form part of the apologetic enterprise (Figure 5).

LEAVING APOLOGETICAL CONCERNS FOR LATER We should not study revelation-inspiration to prove the truth of the Bible but to understand the way in which the Bible was produced. The question about the truth of the Bible is not to be decided a priori from its divine origin.

Figure 5: Methodological Step Two points may help us to see the validity of this methodological maxim: Priority of Revelation-Inspiration. The existence of a doctrine is necessary before its defense becomes possible. Besides, any understanding of biblical doctrine assumes an answer to the question of how the Bible came

HOME PAGE 18

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

to be. The study of revelation-inspiration, then, precedes the understanding of any doctrine; the understanding of that doctrine precedes its defense. Bias Management. Mingling the study of revelation-inspiration with the task of apologetics undermines both enterprises. Refusing to follow the maxim of disengagement will lead to an overemphasis on the more practical defense of Scripture in detriment to the consideration of revelationinspiration. An apologetical bias may pressure students to shape their views regarding the origin of Scripture so that they correspond to the views of their community of faith. We must carefully distinguish revelation-inspiration from apologetics because the two are only indirectly connected through hermeneutics and doctrine. The understanding of revelation-inspiration one brings to theological investigation directly influences oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hermeneutic. This, in turn, helps us understand Christian doctrines. Only then can apologetics play its grounding or defensive role. c. Distinguishing Revelation-Inspiration from Hermeneutics. Revelation-inspiration is more closely related to hermeneutics than to apologetics. The field of hermeneutics is the study of general methodological principles of textual and ideological interpretation.9 Biblical hermeneutics concerns the interpretation of Scripture. Protestant traditions have often viewed hermeneutics as a brief methodological introduction to the interpretation of Scripture. In this view, hermeneutics describes the rules and procedures the exegete must follow in his or her search for scriptural meanings. Thus understood, hermeneutics centers more on the rules than on the process of interpretation it is meant to facilitate. Moreover, those interpretive rules are seen as undisputed guides to the meaning of the text, and once they are applied, the meaning of the text is supposed to pop up as reliably as a garage door when the door opener is pressed. The meaning of the text is seen as objective and, therefore, obvious to anyone following the proper rules of interpretation. During the last two centuries, the study of the process of interpretation has acquired a pivotal role, over against its rules. Philosophers studied

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

interpretation as an instance of human knowledge, which spurred more study of its nature, limits, and functions. That study has proven both interpretationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s complexity and its relativity. Complexity refers to the many components involved in the interpretive act, while relativity underlines the fact that interpretation is always subordinate to the framework of reference, or point of view, from which the student approaches a given text, idea or belief under investigation. The hermeneutical revolution has been the conviction that all human knowledge is based on presuppositions and that those presuppositions are themselves the result of interpretation. In other words, the presuppositions involved in any process of knowing are produced by the cultural and personal experiences of human beings. Therefore, no two human beings will understand the same text, reality, idea or belief in exactly the same way. Unlike traditional Protestant traditions, todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hermeneutical age focuses not on prescriptive rules for textual interpretation, but on their underlying presuppositions. We will come back to this issue later. Now we must consider the two-way relationship between revelationinspiration and hermeneutics. As one pole in the relationship, hermeneutics influences our understanding of revelation-inspiration, the other pole, revelationinspiration influences our hermeneutics of texts and doctrines. This bidirectional relationship raises three questions: (1) how each pole affects the other; (2) which pole should have methodological precedence, and (3) whether the relationship involves circular reasoning. Both poles belong to the philosophical area of epistemology, or knowledge. Revelation-inspiration probes the origin of theological knowledge, while hermeneutics delves into the issues of communication and understanding. Which problem should we approach first? In Â§2.2, we saw that the study of revelation-inspiration takes place in the area of ideas and understanding also studied by hermeneutics. Moreover, the process of understanding textual origin assumes interpretation of a text and, therefore, also presupposes at least basic hermeneutical principles. These facts indicate that we should begin, then, by establishing some broad hermeneutical principles. Please note that once the inquiry into revelation-inspiration has taken place, its

HOME PAGE 20

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

conclusions become presuppositions which shape the principles of biblical and theological interpretations. Does this bidirectional relationship hide a vicious circle? On one hand, the doctrine of revelation-inspiration stands on the broad hermeneutical principles that it presupposes. On the other, biblical hermeneutics depend on a doctrine of revelation and inspiration. This bidirectional relationship, however, is not prone to circular reasoning because the presuppositional role of revelation-inspiration does not revert back to the same presuppositions assumed in the reflection that generated it. We gain our basic principles for interpreting the Bible from the Bible, but as we do so, we do not need any prior understanding of revelation-inspiration. In this case, we can approach Scripture as we would any other book. After we develop our understanding of revelation-inspiration from its pages, we can combine our view of the Bible’s origin with the presuppositions that we assumed for the formation of that view. Thus, the doctrine of revelation-inspiration is integrated with a package of foundational presuppositions that together shape how we interpret the Bible (Figure 6). Only one aspect of the bidirectional relationship applies directly to the study of revelation-inspiration— the role which some broad hermeneutical principles play in shaping our views of revelation-inspiration. Once the study is complete, revelation-inspiration becomes an additional presupposition or hermeneutical principle. Our specific study ends at that point – once the doctrine of revelation-inspiration is established. Since our study partly belongs to the area of hermeneutics, we will conduct our investigation of the idea of revelation-inspiration by probing into the interpretive principles that condition its formation.

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Figure 6: Priority of Hermeneutics over Revelation-Inspiration

Â§3 WHY SHOULD WE STUDY REVELATION-INSPIRATION? Greek philosophers of the classical period pursued knowledge for its own sake; they were moved to understand things by the simple delight of knowing. But the sheer wonder of discovery will probably not be a motivating force for pragmatic, twenty-first-century Americans. We are all, even evangelical Christians more prone to engage in a profitable enterprise than in one without personal benefits. Consequently, when professors recommend an issue for study, the students immediately ask whether it will play a direct role in their ministry. For instance, they immediately recognize sermon materials as useful. Greek, Hebrew, and Church History professors, on the other hand, have a much more difficult time meeting a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s criteria for usefulness. Unfortunately, revelation-inspiration falls within those courses that few students will immediately deem as practical. A few thoughts on the real-world benefits of studying revelation-inspiration may motivate you not only to read this text carefully, but also to dig deeper into the issue for yourself. In this section, we will examine the relevance of revelationinspiration to theological, ecclesiological, and missiological areas of ministry.

HOME PAGE 22

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

1. Relevance to Theology. The usefulness of revelation-inspiration is proportional to the role that Scripture plays in the beliefs and ministry of a pastor. For instance, most evangelical pastors may be inclined to give Scripture a greater role than their charismatic colleagues who, at times, may lean more on the prompting of the Holy Spirit than on Scripture. Consequently, communities claiming to build their beliefs and actions on the sola Scriptura principle may find more profit in studying revelation-inspiration than those who build their beliefs on the prima Scriptura principle. Prima Scriptura is a theological principle that gives first and special attention to Scripture, and then to other subordinate authorities that may help to express or complement an understanding of Christian theology. Revelationinspiration is still valuable to traditions following the prima Scriptura principle because it grounds the reasons for dealing with Scripture in a more selective way. This will become clearer in later chapters dealing with various models of revelation-inspiration. As noted in Â§2.5.c, the study of revelation-inspiration is worthwhile to a pastor because it uncovers one of the principles or presuppositions of biblical interpretation (see Figure 6). Since pastors interpret the Bible every time they preach, they should immediately recognize as valuable any study foundational to their homiletical expositions. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Christian theology is in crisis. Christianity is not shaping culture as it did in past centuries, and its thought has fragmented more than ever before. New ways of doing theology abound. Philosophical, scientific, and cultural opinions have replaced scriptural teachings. Many Christians rarely read or study the Bible for themselves. Various communities claiming to hold Scripture as their only basis for life and doctrine espouse very different theological views. Why these theological contradictions among Christian denominations all claiming to base their views on the same Scripture? Shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t they agree on the basic teachings of their common faith? Obviously, their differences are not in the

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

sources they employ. The Bible is their one source. While there may be many causes for these conflicts, we must note one in particular: hermeneutics. Divergent principles of interpretation lead to diverse understandings of Scripture, leading to conflicting doctrines and practices. In light of this, the study of revelation-inspiration holds great promise for Christian traditions endorsing sola Scriptura. Yet, a correct understanding of revelation-inspiration alone will do little for theological and ecclesiastical communities. It must be used in conjunction with other biblically based hermeneutical axioms to develop fine-tuned principles for biblical interpretation and systematic theology. Without a clear understanding of revelation-inspiration, well-meaning pastors run the risk of following their own hearts or the expectations of their community over Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s revelation. No effort, prayer, or miracle can undo the tragic consequences of doing a theology that assumes a wrong or an inadequate understanding of revelation-inspiration. Only a proper understanding of this area will bring Christians back to unified, biblical theology.

2. Relevance to the Church. We live in ecumenical times. However, it is easier for us to see ecumenical progress in church activities than in doctrinal issues. This pragmatism apparently flows from unbridgeable theological divergences. But unity in life and practice blended with wildly dissimilar teachings is not a recipe for success. Christians need to go back to Scripture to find the source of their beliefs. From there, they can retrieve the original teachings of Christianity. Both revelation-inspiration and hermeneutics play paramount roles in this process. Christianity must be unified in truth as well as practice. Any unity not based on serious thought is external and, therefore, artificial. Without a theological basis external harmony in activities and rituals is dangerous because it may easily reduce Christianity to lifeless rituals and social programs. Christian unity, then, must spring from theological thinking springing from the solid foundation of Scripture. The ecclesiological primacy of revelation-inspiration is twofold. First, it

HOME PAGE 24

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

affirms the Bible’s role in the life of the church and asks that she to return to the foundation of her teachings and practices. Through the process of discovering, reflecting on and surrendering to truth together, Christians can build real unity. Second, revelation-inspiration is a vital part of retrieving and appropriating the teachings of Scripture. Without such a biblical foundation, church unity will always have external, practical, and political bases. The inner unity of the Christian church, then, requires a clear understanding of the revelation-inspiration process and its hermeneutical role. Revelation-inspiration is an essential element of the inner unity of the church.

3. Usefulness for the Mission of the Church. The mission of the church stands on theology. Without it, there is no Christian church and no Christian mission. Moreover, without Scripture, Christian theology would not exist. Obviously, the Bible must be properly understood and appropriated correctly in order to do theology accurately. At this point, the relevance of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration become clear (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Missiological Usefulness of Revelation-Inspiration The doctrine of revelation-inspiration is a fundamental hermeneutical principle in Christian theology (cf. §2.5.c). Variations in understanding it have direct and momentous repercussions in the church’s life, teachings, and mission.

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

An inaccurate doctrine of revelation-inspiration leads to a distorted and foggy view of theology that adversely affects the life and the mission of the church. For instance, Christians who believe Scripture was produced by the religious imagination of human beings tend to shy away from proselytism and identify Christian action with social and political involvement. Therefore, the best methodology for a successful missionary enterprise is a clear understanding of biblical theology. Revelation-inspiration is the first of the necessary steps that lead to such an understanding.

REVIEW • The study of revelation-inspiration requires perseverance The study of revelation-inspiration is an abstract, conceptual undertaking. The issues involved in understanding it are many. Not all explanations can be presented at the same time, and what may not be clear in the first chapter may be illumined in the tenth chapter. So you must be patient. Keep reading, and as you become familiar with the big picture, the various issues will begin to make more sense. • The study of revelation-inspiration belongs to the arena of systematic theology The study of revelation-inspiration is a part of systematic theology. Reflection here requires proficiency in dealing with ideas and how they relate to each other. Familiarity with philosophical analysis may be helpful. • The study of revelation-inspiration requires its own methodology Theology is a complex enterprise involving many disciplines and methodologies. Since revelation-inspiration is a part of systematic theology, it uses its methodology. We should not study revelationinspiration by borrowing methodologies from other theological disciplines, such as apologetics, exegesis or history.

HOME PAGE 26

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

• The study of revelation-inspiration requires special study techniques Since you may not have much experience with studying in this area, consider the following steps: 1) Identify the technical words. 2) Grasp the meaning of the ideas behind those words. 3) Express the meaning of those ideas in common words. 4) Look for connections between the ideas. • Definition of revelation-inspiration Revelation-inspiration is the process through which God originated Scripture. This process included two complementary sub-processes: (1) Revelation, in which God originated the contents and information in the mind of biblical writers, and (2) Inspiration, in which those contents and information were put into writing. • Revelation-inspiration and the authority of Scripture The issue of revelation-inspiration must not be confused with the issue of the authority of Scripture. However, because the two are related, we need to distinguish between them. To study revelation-inspiration, we follow a two-pronged approach. First, we ground the Bible’s authority on both the doctrine of revelation-inspiration and the verification of the truth of Scripture. Second, we give revelation-inspiration priority over authority. Since the question of authority assumes an understanding of revelationinspiration, we should seek that understanding first. • Revelation-inspiration and apologetics We should not approach the study of revelation-inspiration with a hidden agenda to defend the Bible. Such an apologetical approach may distract students from understanding the cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration (see chapter 5). Therefore, we must leave those concerns until our study is complete and our subsequent view of revelation-inspiration has become a presupposition in the development of doctrine. In other words, we should not study revelation-inspiration to prove the truth of the Bible but

HOME PAGE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

to understand the way in which the Bible was produced. The question about the truth of the Bible is not to be decided a priori from its divine origin.

ENDNOTES 1

Unless otherwise specified, all biblical quotes are from the New American Bible. 2

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1:26. 3

Ibid., 50.

Justo L. González, History of Christian Thought, 3 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971-1975), 1:98. 5

Ibid.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, trans. Francis McDonagh. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 413. 7

Richard A. Muller, The Study of Theology: From Biblical Interpretation to Contemporary Formulation, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation Series, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 148-149. 8

Ibid.

“Ideological” interpretation means interpretation of our “beliefs.”

HOME PAGE

2. GENERAL REVELATION

We are studying the concept of revelation-inspiration and its hermeneutical role in Christian theology. The goal of our study is to understand how God was involved in the Bible’s origin. But before we attempt to understand how it was written, we must differentiate between two concepts: special revelation and general revelation. We will examine how Christian tradition has conflated the two, and the subsequent role natural theology plays in Christian theology.

§4. GENERAL AND SPECIAL REVELATIONS When Christians speak of how human beings come to know God and his will, they refer to two avenues: nature and Scripture. Consequently, they have traditionally accepted two forms of divine revelation— general and special. Briefly, general revelation acknowledges the revelatory activity of God by means other than Scripture, while special revelation refers to the disclosure of God and his will through Scripture. From this distinction, it is clear that any discussion of the Bible’s origin – the entire scope of our study – falls within the boundaries of special revelation. Theologians call the broader manifestations of God “general” because how God reveals himself in nature is less specific than how he does in the words of Scripture. For example, consider the broadness and consequent lack

HOME PAGE GENERAL REVELATION

of specificity conveyed in Psalm 19:1: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of his hands” (NASB). In this passage, David is writing about general revelation. But while the heavens are “telling of the glory of God,” notice they do not utter anything specific. Indeed, David observes in verse 3 that “there is no speech, nor are there words.” This type of revelation is labeled “general” because of its universal reach – that is, God touches every human being through general revelation. In contrast, through special biblical revelation he reaches only those to whom Scripture is available. General revelation is also known as “natural revelation” because nature provides much of the objective data. A miraculous, supernatural action of God does not produce this form of revelation. Instead, to reach every person God uses what is naturally available to him or her. Scripture points to many instances of ordinary means through which God communicates with humankind. (For example, see Job 36:24-37:24; 38:1-39:30 and Psalms 8, 19, 29, 65, 104, 148.) Another reason many theologians call this revelatory activity of God “natural” is their belief that human beings are capable of comprehending God’s message through the natural processes of their minds, without supernatural help. This notion, however, comes from classical philosophy rather than Scripture.

§5. GENERAL REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE How do we know that the God of the Bible reveals himself by means other than Scripture? While we could argue for the reality of general revelation on philosophical grounds, these fall short if we are to settle the issue from a biblical perspective. In fact, Scripture itself affirms the existence of general revelation.

1. Biblical Statements As mentioned above, the best-known Old Testament text pointing to general revelation is Psalm 19:1-4.In that text, God reveals himself through His creation. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul clarifies and further develops the Old Testament concept of general revelation in

HOME PAGE 30

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Romans 1:18-21, describing the context of universal sinfulness within which we should understand justification. He writes, “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (NASB, emphasis supplied). Since the Greek word translated “made evident” means “to reveal, to bring to light,” this verse can be translated, “because God revealed [it] to them.” In this text, God tells us that he uses nature and history to make himself personally known to the individual. Thus understood, this text does not support the classical identification of general revelation with natural theology. (We will explore the difference between general revelation and natural theology in §6.2.)

2. Three Facets of General Revelation Paul broadens the idea of general revelation in three important facets— the agency, the content, and the goal of revelation. Agency addresses who is working within general revelation and is thus its most important characteristic. Content deals with the concrete means involved in revelation. The goal is the desired outcome of the revelatory process. a. Agency Regarding the essence of general revelation, Paul underlines that what can be known about God is plain to human beings “because God has shown it to them” (Romans 1:19). In general revelation, as well as in special revelation, God is personally involved in the actual process of revelation in two ways. First, God shapes the medium through which He will reveal Himself to human

HOME PAGE GENERAL REVELATION

beings, and then He uses them to reveal Himself and his purposes. In Special revelation God generates Scripture which, the Holy Spirit uses as medium to reveal God to sinners. In General revelation God creates the world which the Holy Spirit uses as medium to reveal God to sinners. That God takes initiative to speak through the medium He chooses is essential to revelation. He is the agent, human beings are the recipients of God’s revelatory actions. In both general and special revelation, then, the content of a message is not created by a person using his head to interpret a set of facts. Instead, the Holy Spirit opens a person’s mind to His message through those facts, whether they are the words of Scripture or the realities of the person’s world. John, in the introduction to his Gospel, explains that the second person of the Trinity, the Word, is “the true light [that] enlightens every man” (1:9). God achieves this universal salvific enlightenment through a variety of means. b. Means Paul specifically identifies the acts of God as the means of general revelation. Tradition has understood Paul’s statement to mean creation or nature. In other words, the means of general revelation are the things God created and that area of reality we identify as “nature,” in contrast to that of human history and experience. Paul’s statement, however, does not support the traditional view of the means of general revelation. Instead, he identifies the objective means or content of general revelation as “the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20). Since the Greek word behind this phrase also means “the things that have been done,” Paul is referring not only to the realm of creation but also to providence - God’s administration of human history. In other words, general revelation can employ both nature and events (see Acts 14:17). According to Paul, general revelation is the good news that God manages to reach not only those who have access to Scripture, but all of humanity, including all those that will never be able to read the Bible.

HOME PAGE 32

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

c. Goal Finally, Paul underscores that the goal of general revelation is to allow human intelligence to see (Romans 1:20) the truth of God (Romans 1:18). Thus, God Himself acts (agency) using nature and history (means) to reveal his will to each human being (goal). Paul’s understanding of general revelation raises two questions. First, can a person be saved only on the basis of the knowledge given him by God through general revelation? Second, does the biblical affirmation of general revelation require or even make room for natural theology?

3. Salvific Reach The answer to the first question seems to be affirmative. On the basis of his description of general revelation, Paul makes the all-inclusive statement that “there will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.” (Romans 2:9-11, NIV). This statement embraces every human being. It assumes the salvific goal of general revelation because only general revelation actually reaches every human being that ever lived. Assuming the essential indivisibility of faith and works, Paul asserts the general principle of salvation is bestowed not upon “the hearers of the law [oi`av kroatai. no,mou ],” but rather upon “the doers of the law [oi`poih tai. no,mou ]” (Rom 2:13). Even though Paul does not clarify in this passage that the “doing of the law” is not an independent human accomplishment but rather the result of human surrendering to the personal ministry of Christ (Heb 7:25) through His representative on earth, the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:26-27), it is obvious that he assumes the latter. The doing of the law, thus, is the basic content of the existential experience of the believer “in Christ.” On this basis, it can be seen that if the Gentiles, who do not have access to the Bible (Romans 2:14), willfully surrender to the calling of the Holy Spirit presented to them through general revelation, they will be transformed into the image of God in Christ, whom they do not know,thus showing “that what the law requires is written

HOME PAGE GENERAL REVELATION

on their hearts” (Rom 2:15). At this point, it should be noticed that, according to Scripture, the writing of the law in the human heart is an essential component of the eternal covenant of salvation (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10). According to Paul, the fact that some among those who do not have access to Scripture have the law of God written in their hearts can be explained only in reference to the fulfillment of the eternal covenant of salvation and the transformation of their minds. Paul’s explanation presents a God who is able to communicate the same plan of salvation, grounded in the revelation and work of Christ, by speaking either through Scripture, or through nature and history. This is the basis for the impartiality (Romans 2:11) and the universality of his judgment on humanity: God “‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger” (Romans 2:6-8, NIV). Clearly, Scripture affirms the salvific reach of general revelation. Now we turn our attention to the second question: does the existence of general (or natural) revelation as affirmed in Scripture necessarily ground and justify the existence of natural theology as traditionally affirmed by Christian theologians?

§6. GENERAL REVELATION AND NATURAL THEOLOGY 1. Classical View Natural theology is a reflection about God based on data provided by nature and analyzed by the powers of human reason and imagination. Moreover, natural theology has become synonymous with general revelation. Classical thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas believed that Romans 1:20 provides the biblical basis for natural theology; thus, the terms became interchangeable. Theologians use the words “natural theology” to describe the philosophical approach to the knowledge of God. Simply, natural theology and philosophical theology both describe a human search for the knowledge of God based on

HOME PAGE 34

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

nature rather than Scripture. Since general revelation is also called natural revelation, there is an innate verbal link to natural theology, and it is no surprise that many people identify the two with each other. But this association blatantly ignores their basic difference: agent.

2. General Revelation Versus Natural Theology What is the difference between general revelation and natural theology? Based on our earlier discussion of the agency of general revelation, we can say that the difference between them is in the person performing the activity in each. General revelation is a revelatory activity performed by God, while natural theology is an interpretive activity performed by human beings. In general revelation, God uses nature and history to reveal His will to each person with the goal of their salvation. In natural theology, however, human beings address these same objects, but with the purpose of interpreting them from their own perspectives to gain an understanding of God. In other words, they try to decipher God based on their interpretations of nature and events. One should not confuse the revelatory act of God with the hermeneutical act of human beings. These two activities are different in agent and nature. In general revelation, God is the agent and His will the content; His purpose is to lead each individual to Himself. In natural theology, human beings are the agents and the contents are theoretical ideas about God produced by their imaginations. Unfortunately, natural theology produces teachings in a degree of specificity and universality that can truly be attained only through special revelation. Traditionally, Christian theology has understood general revelation to be natural theology. Thus, in this usage, general revelation mistakenly refers to rational human interpretations of the world instead of divine revelatory activity in the life of each believer. Nature as Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s creation supplemented by human thinking becomes natural theology through human agency. Natural theology is not the work of God, but the interpretive work of human beings. When general revelation is understood as natural theology it loses the general role described in Scripture. As philosophical teachings about God, natural theology cannot reach all human beings through all times. It also loses the

HOME PAGE GENERAL REVELATION

cognitive broadness characteristic of natural and historical realities. The biblical concept of general revelation describes God using the knowledge available to each person to reveal Himself and His will to them. The knowledge and understanding leading to that experience have personal value only; they cannot be considered valid for all human beings everywhere, as most theologians claim. Therefore, while the Bible affirms general revelation, it does not require or even make room for natural theology. Christian theologians should carefully avoid using the teachings of natural theology as a foundation from which to interpret Scripture and build the doctrines of Christianity.

3. Making Room for Philosophy in Christian Theology But is there still a role for natural theology in Christian theology? Classical Christian thought finds in Romans 1:20 the scriptural basis for such a role. Proponents of natural theology argue that since God created nature, we are entitled to read it as his handiwork. Since it is a work of God as much as Scripture is, they contend, we can observe nature in order to know its author. But these theologians often overlook the fact that the teachings produced by natural theology find their source not in nature, but in the fertile soil of human imagination. Their reasoning does not take into account the gap between the indistinctness and lack of specificity within nature, and the detailed complexity of natural theology. This gap has been bridged by human interpretation. Consequently, what we find within natural theology is human invention rather than God’s revelation. In fact, precisely because of nature’s limitations as a means of communication, God used special revelation to communicate personally with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:16-17; 3:8-24). Simply speaking, general revelation does not make use of words and, therefore, has no clear content. Natural phenomena, historical events, and existential experiences may be used by God as He attempts to personally reach each human being on behalf of his or her salvation. According to Romans 1, these things have always been at God’s personal disposal and dependent upon his activity in each person’s situation (Romans 1: 19-20). But Paul is not talking about natural theology, for he does not say that each person’s

HOME PAGE 36

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

experience should be universalized or considered equal with Scripture. Cognitive universality belongs only to special revelation as present in Scripture. General revelation has an individual focus, which cannot be translated into universal teachings without introducing human imagination. When that imagination becomes a component, it takes control of the meaning of general revelation. Therefore, the resulting teachings – natural theology – cannot be said to come from God. On the other hand, in special revelation God works through words. Since the linguistic means of special revelation allow for the highest degree of cognitive specificity, it is uniquely suited for a universally valid theology. In general revelation God talks without words (Psalm 19:3). Yet, the heavens tell the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork (Psalm 19:1). Nature and history (general revelation) are facts we interpret. Yet, when human beings that have no information about the God of Scripture read them in search of theological ideas they remain silent. In them they do not find teachings about God or His work of salvation but only a realization of his “invisible things,” such as, His power and divinity (Romans 1:20) that the Holy Spirit uses to bring salvation to those that have no access to Scripture. Natural theology, on the contrary, is about teachings on God’s existence and nature. Where do these teachings come from? Certainly they do not come from the facts of nature and history. On the contrary, they are constructs generated by theologians. To understand this point better, let us liken God to a carpenter and His general revelation to a chair. Could we read the person, character and actions of the carpenter from the chair he built (general revelation)? Does the chair tell us anything about the carpenter other than his existence and power to do quality work? Wouldn’t any statement I conclude about the carpenter’s nature and actions be generated by my imagination and not by the carpenter? In a similar manner, the teachings of natural theology do not stem from nature and history but from philosophical imagination.

4. Conclusion Revelation-inspiration should not be confused with either general revelation or natural theology. Revelation-inspiration describes how Scripture as God’s special revelation came into existence. General revelation, as taught

HOME PAGE GENERAL REVELATION

in the Bible, is a means other than Scripture the Holy Spirit uses to reach all human beings individually on behalf of their salvation. General revelation is not divine teaching but God’s action. Natural theology is another name for human philosophy, which seeks to disclose God by reflecting on and interpreting nature and history. The basic problem with natural theology is that the facts of nature and history are not expressed by words and therefore lack the cognitive specificity required of a theology that seeks to be based on God’s teachings and not on human imagination.

§7. NATURAL THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY In general revelation, God uses the world he has created and the history with which he is personally involved, to impress the mind of every human being for salvation. Clearly diverging from special and general revelation, natural theology is a human activity. A theology based on Scripture should affirm general revelation, while rejecting natural theology. Rejecting natural theology is rejecting human philosophy as a source of revelation. Christian believers claiming to ground their beliefs on Scripture alone cannot consider philosophy, or for that matter science, as sources of data for theology that is at the same level as biblical data. In contrast, classical, modern, and postmodern theologies have ranked human philosophical and scientific data the same as or higher than the Bible. They use these ideas as hermeneutical principles for interpreting Scripture and formulating doctrine . These hermeneutical principles, as we will discuss later, are also used to explore revelation-inspiration. Unfortunately, even mainline Protestant denominations still follow this methodology, thereby giving up the sola Scriptura (Scripture only) and the tota Scriptura (the entire Scripture) principles. When hermeneutical principles are defined by philosophy, Scripture becomes only one of several sources of theology, along with philosophy, science, and culture. Furthermore, the Bible is no longer even the first source of revelation because philosophy and science provide the initial principles of interpretation. Faithfulness to the sola, tota, and prima Scriptura (Scripture, only, entirely, and first) principles require that theologians derive their hermeneutical principles from the

HOME PAGE 38

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Bible. This is what we will do in this book.

§8. REVIEW •

Special Revelation God’s revelation to human beings through Scripture is called “special revelation.” In special revelation, God does two things: he originates Scripture, and uses it to reveal himself, his will, and his salvation to human beings. The first process we call “revelation-inspiration.” The second is known as “divine illumination”. God’s revelation to human beings through nature and history is called “general revelation.”

•

General Revelation In general revelation, God does three things: he creates and orders the natural world; governs history; and uses both of those processes to reveal himself and his will in order to save people (Figure 1). The mere interpretation and contemplation of nature bring neither a knowledge of God nor salvation. According to Scripture, revelation takes place when the Holy Spirit illuminates the reader. The Bible does not discuss general revelation extensively, yet clearly points out its existence in the Old and New Testaments. Paul, in Romans, shows that general revelation is a divine activity using nature and history. The goal of general revelation is the same as in special revelation— the salvation of human beings.

•

Classical View: General Revelation Equals Natural Theology as Philosophy Christian theology has traditionally identified general revelation as natural theology. However, general revelation is a revelatory act of God, while natural theology is a cognitive act of human beings. Natural theology is synonymous with human philosophy, and in Christian

HOME PAGE GENERAL REVELATION

theology is the philosophical approach to the knowledge of God (figure 2).

GENERAL REVELATION = NATURAL THEOLOGY NATURAL THEOLOGY = PHILOSOPHY Figure 2: Classical View

•

Scripture does not make room for natural theology. Over time, Christian theologians have used Paul’s affirmation of general revelation to justify their use of philosophical concepts and teachings. However, this methodological procedure is based on tradition rather than Scripture. The biblical affirmation of general revelation does not require or even make room for the existence of natural theology or its use in shaping Christian theology. Consequently, Christian theologians should carefully avoid building on the teachings of natural theology (figure 3).

GENERAL REVELATION

? NATURAL THEOLOGY

Figure 3: Biblical View

•

Warning: do not identify the biblical concept of general revelation with natural theology. We should distinguish carefully between general revelation and natural theology. According to the Bible, general revelation is a means other than Scripture used by the Holy Spirit to reach all human beings with the possibility of salvation. Natural theology is another name for human philosophy, which seeks to unveil God through the interpretation of nature and history.

HOME PAGE 40

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

â&#x20AC;˘

Distinguishing between revelation-inspiration, general revelation, and natural theology. Revelation-inspiration should not be confused with either general revelation or natural theology. The difference is in how each works. Revelation-inspiration describes how Scripture came into existence, that is, how God originated the Bible as special revelation. Natural theology is human reflection on God, based on nature and history. General revelation is the process through which God reaches every human being with means other than Scripture.

â&#x20AC;˘

Christian theology should draw hermeneutical principles from Scripture rather than natural theology. Christian theology, including the Protestant and evangelical traditions, has taken the definition of its hermeneutical principles from human philosophy (natural theology). When this methodological step is taken, the sola Scriptura principle is automatically brushed aside. The affirmation of this principle is dependent on which source hermeneutical principles will be taken from. The sola Scriptura principle stands only when theologians define the hermeneutical principles of theology from Scripture alone.

HOME PAGE

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SPECIAL REVELATION

After our excursion into general revelation and natural theology, we return our attention to revelation-inspiration. In Chapter 1, we discovered that it belongs to the area of systematic theology (ยง2.2). Moreover, we defined revelation-inspiration as the process through which the Bible was written, a process involving both God and man (ยง2.4). We also learned that to gain a clear focus on revelation-inspiration, we must distinguish it from things like authority (ยง2.5.a), apologetics (ยง2.5.b), and hermeneutics (ยง2.5.c). The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the strategy we will use to understand the origin of Scripture. Every presentation requires a methodology or strategy to reach its intended goal. This book is no exception. So, before we explore the issue itself, we must spend some time drawing the broad contours of our map in anticipation of what lies ahead. Each chapter of this book is a stepping stone to the next, so it is important to understand all the facets of each one. Think of this book as a picture being painted before your eyes, with each chapter contributing some strokes. The full picture will become apparent to you only at the end. In this chapter, we will explore the concepts of revelation, revelationinspiration as a process and as a structure. Then we will deal with revelation-inspiration as theory, as fact, and as problem. At the end of the

HOME PAGE 42

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

chapter we will consider the methodology to be applied throughout the rest of the book.

§9. THE CONCEPT OF REVELATION As we saw in chapter 1, the word revelation may be used in various senses both broad and specific. Remember, revelation generally describes how God communicates with people; this book focuses on how He was involved in the creation of the Bible.

1. Broad Sense Generally speaking, revelation can be described as the way God communicates His person, will, and wisdom to human beings in order to bring salvation to them. Understood this way, revelation includes all the objective means present in general and special revelations. Scripture is part of this broad conceptualization of revelation. We are accustomed to saying that Scripture is the “revelation of God” to human beings. However, historical facts, such as the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, are also revelations of God. For this reason, we say that Jesus Christ is the greatest revelation God has given to humanity. Sometimes, we take events in our lives as the revelation of God through the Holy Spirit. These examples show that the idea of revelation, in a general sense, involves all divine activity through which God speaks, every way in which He communicates with human beings.

2. Restricted Sense Here we begin to use the word revelation more technically. Theologians use it to describe a more specific range of divine activities: what God as divine agent actually did to produce the Bible as special revelation. It is in this sense that we will use the idea of revelation from here on.

HOME PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SPECIAL REVELATION

§10. REVELATION-INSPIRATION AS A COGNITIVE-LINGUISTIC PROCESS As we advance in our study, it will become clear that the way God originated Scripture was very complex. It was not created instantaneously by divine command, but by a historical process in which God was involved in various ways. As we discussed earlier (§2.4, see Figure 2), throughout this process, God acted in two different, yet coordinated and complementary ways— in revelation and inspiration. Revelation in its restricted, technical sense describes how God placed the contents of Scripture in the minds of the Bible writers. Inspiration in its restricted, technical sense refers to how God brought those contents from the authors’minds into written form. Revelation involves a cognitive process, while inspiration involves a linguistic process. Revelation should clarify how ideas and information arrived in the minds of the prophets, while inspiration should clarify how they were put into words. In short, the historical process that led to the existence of Scripture involved a twofold dynamic— the cognitive process of revelation and the linguistic process of inspiration.

§11. THE STRUCTURE OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION The existence and operation of the cognitive-linguistic process of revelationinspiration implies a relationship. That is, revelation-inspiration did not take place in a vacuum, but through a relational event between God and the Bible writers. Revelation-inspiration, then, has two agents— God and each of the Bible writers. Any attempt to understand the Bible’s origin assumes an interpretation of that relationship. In other words, when theologians study revelation-inspiration, their goal is to understand what happened between God and the human writers. But theologians do not begin from square one. What they have in their minds, from opinions to knowledge to theological doctrines, they necessarily

HOME PAGE 44

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

bring to their interpretation of revelation-inspiration. Their presuppositions of God and human nature determine their conclusions about revelationinspiration because God and human beings are the two main contributors to that process. Therefore, as the interpretation of the divine-human relationship varies from one theologian to the next, so does the consequent understanding of revelation-inspiration, and therefore the interpretation of Scripture. The nature of the relationship between God and man plays such a prominent role in understanding revelation-inspiration that it cannot be overemphasized. This will become more apparent when, in later chapters, we analyze various interpretations of revelation-inspiration.

§12. REVELATION-INSPIRATION AS THEORY The study of Scripture’s origin leads to the creation of a doctrine of revelationinspiration. Yet, there are many conflicting doctrines on the subject. The multiplicity of interpretations reveal the theoretical nature of revelationinspiration. Why are there so many different doctrines of revelation-inspiration? Robert Gnuse suggests that one reason may be the obvious tendency theologians have to disagree with one another. Another reason, he believes, is the lack of clarity and information that we find on this issue in Scripture. Although Gnuse’s reasons are valid, it is possible that the diversity of interpretations spring from a deeper source: the undergirding structure of revelation that theologians assume when interpreting revelation-inspiration. As we have already learned (§11), revelation-inspiration involves two agents— God and the Bible writer. Consequently, our understanding of the event that produced Scripture is directly conditioned by our understanding of the relationship between God and people. Differences in the interpretation of divine and human nature will necessarily produce contrasting understandings of revelation-inspiration. This, I believe, is the reason for multiple interpretations of the same concept. Conflicting doctrines of revelation-inspiration can exist only on the theoretical level. But what does it mean to say that revelation-inspiration is

HOME PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SPECIAL REVELATION

theoretical? It means that doctrines of revelation-inspiration are human efforts to understand something that God has not fully explained. Although the Bible is not completely silent about itself as a book or about its origin (in chapter 4 we will discuss the two best-known places where Scripture deals with inspiration), the biblical information at our disposal does not explicitly describe the cognitive-linguistic event of revelation-inspiration. God has not included his view on the issue . Consequently, all explanations of the origin of Scripture are theoretical in the sense that they are tentative and hypothetical constructions created by human beings. Therefore, no doctrine of revelation-inspiration is final or invested with dogmatic authority. To say that doctrines of revelation-inspiration are theoretical implies that they are hypothetical. Because these doctrines are constructed by human reason, and since only God can provide absolute certainty, theology cannot decide with complete confidence which interpretations of revelation-inspiration are correct and which are false. Therefore, any doctrine of revelation-inspiration that we choose as the foundation for our theology can provide only hypothetical certainty. Must we be satisfied with mere hypotheses on such a foundational issue? How can we ever be certain that we truly understand revelation-inspiration? I believe we may be assured we are on the right track when we base our understanding on Scripture rather than reason (see below §13). Every doctrine of revelation-inspiration is grounded on a presupposition concerning the structure of revelation, that is, on the understanding of the nature of God and human beings, and how they interact (§11). As we will see in later chapters, classical and modern traditions of Christian theology have built their doctrines of revelation-inspiration on a philosophical understanding of God and human nature – that is, on the shaky, hypothetical ground of reason. There is another way to explore the meaning of revelation-inspiration. We can choose to build on the Protestant sola Scriptura principle. In so doing, we are still working within the limits of human reason and, therefore, may never claim absolute certainty from a rational viewpoint. But because absolute certainty can be achieved by direct revelation from God, we may rest assured that a doctrine of revelation-inspiration based on biblical presuppositions, data, and phenomena is true compared with doctrines built

HOME PAGE 46

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

on philosophical presuppositions (cf. chap. 9). The historical-cognitive model that I will present in the third section of this book is still theoretical and hypothetical from a human viewpoint, but from the viewpoint of biblical revelation – sola Scriptura – it can achieve certainty.

§13. REVELATION-INSPIRATION AS FACT Most of us are accustomed to working with facts. The so-called “hard sciences”, such as physics, biology, and astronomy, work by interpreting concrete, measurable data. Although the interpretations of facts are theoretical, the facts themselves are not. By their very definition, facts are real and certain. Is it possible there are facts of revelation-inspiration, tangible, concrete things from which to begin our task? Actually, there are. The events of both revelation and inspiration are the concrete, cognitive-linguistic contacts that took place between God and the Bible writer. These events were personal and private, inaccessible even to those close to the writers themselves. Moreover, these events are now history, belonging to the irretrievable realm of the past. So, although the various events of revelation are not available to the researcher, the results of these events are available to us in the concrete fact of revelation: Scripture. The Bible exists. Therefore, since it is the result of the revelation-inspiration process, it contains the facts we need to further our own process of understanding. The fact that Scripture exists presents two major sources of information or data that are directly related to revelation-inspiration. These are the doctrine and the phenomena of Scripture.

1. The Doctrine of Scripture Scripture does not include a doctrine of revelation-inspiration, but it does

HOME PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SPECIAL REVELATION

include a doctrine of Scripture. In other words, biblical writers did not take time to describe to their readers the way in which the divine and human agencies interacted in the generation of the writings. However, biblical authors did take considerable time to express their views of Scripture as a book. These views, spread throughout the Bible, are known as the “biblical doctrine of Scripture.”

2. The Phenomena of Scripture By phenomena of Scripture, theologians mean the obvious attributes of the Bible as a written work. They include literary characteristics such as style, language, and figures of speech, and characteristics of content such as what Scripture says and teaches. When these phenomena are carefully studied, they show a number of features that seem to demonstrate human rather than divine activity. To find God’s role in the creation of the Bible, we must study in detail the doctrine of Scripture as described within its pages. There the Bible describes itself as of divine origin. In short, the doctrine of Scripture emphasizes the divine role, while the phenomena of Scripture indicate human participation. It is not surprising, then, to learn that doctrines of revelation-inspiration emphasizing the divine origin of Scripture generally ignore the human role implicit in the phenomena of Scripture. Likewise, doctrines of revelation-inspiration sensitive to the human role warranted by the book’s phenomena tend to overlook the divine role described within. To summarize this brief introduction, Scripture is fact, that is, it exists; consequently, theologians have a concrete starting point from which to develop their ideas about revelation-inspiration. First, since the Bible exists, we may ask where it came from. Second, the Bible describes its own origin within its pages, though not in detail. And finally, the Bible as a document has many general and concrete characteristics readily apparent to the reader. In searching for an explanation for the origin of Scripture, theologians should find an answer that accounts for all the data presented by the Bible itself, that is, all that we find in both the doctrine and the phenomena of Scripture. This brings us to the problem of revelation and inspiration.

HOME PAGE 48

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

§14. REVELATION-INSPIRATION AS A PROBLEM As a book, Scripture shares the characteristics common to books produced by human beings. Books have authors; they do not write themselves. Since it is a book, Scripture must also have an author. The questions of authorship and of origin are one and the same: revelation-inspiration. However, in the case of Scripture, the question of authorship goes beyond mere interest in the writer and what made him write. For the Bible, it must tackle the unique problem of a simultaneous, dual authorship. Books are the products of human writing and Scripture is no exception. The doctrine and phenomena of Scripture testify to the fact that it was written by human beings. However, as we will learn in Chapter 4, the doctrine of Scripture unequivocally states that God is the Bible’s author. This is the problem: how can a book have two simultaneous authors, one of whom is divine? Reflection on this issue gives rise to three subordinate questions— possibility, essence, and process. The question about the possibility of revelation-inspiration simply asks whether a simultaneous, dual authorship can in fact take place. Is it possible to claim that God is the author of Scripture? Is it possible to claim at the same time that it was written by human beings? If we assume that it is possible, we move next to the question of essence: if a simultaneous, dual authorship is possible, how did it take place? What was God’s role, and what was the human’s? How did the ideas, information, and words of the Bible emerge from the unique dynamics of this type of authorship? Finally, the question of process builds on the answers to the possibility and essence of revelation. What were the concrete patterns of interaction between God and the human authors in the generation of the Bible? Did the divine and human agencies always follow the same process from beginning to end or is there evidence that the interaction took place in several different ways? The question of process explores the concrete ways in which the Bible was authored. In summary, the problem of revelation-inspiration arises from two apparently contradictory kinds of evidence, both flowing from the facts. On the one hand, Scripture claims to be a direct expression of the wisdom and will of God for the salvation of human beings. On the other hand, it is admitted, even by Scripture itself, that the actual writing of its words was

HOME PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SPECIAL REVELATION

done by human beings. The goal of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration is to clarify this problem. The problem of revelation-inspiration described in this section is one of theological reflection, not faith. Faith is a personal experience influenced more by the message of Scripture than by reflection on its origin. Faith does not cancel the theological question, but assumes an answer to it. To accept the fact of divine revelation in Scripture, faith must first assume an answer to the problem of revelation-inspiration. It is the role of theology to bring that assumption into open analysis.

§15. METHODOLOGY AND STRATEGY The road-map metaphor we used earlier implies more than a view of the goal, source, structure, nature, and problem of the study before us; it also requires a methodology and strategy. By methodology, I mean the way in which we will deal with both the data presented by the fact of revelation-inspiration, and the various interpretations of revelation-inspiration that have developed throughout the history of Christian theology. By strategy, I mean the procedure we will follow to apply the chosen methodology to reach our goal. In this book, I have chosen to apply a phenomenological methodology. Phenomenology can be traced back to Edmund Husserl, a distinguished German philosopher. Hans-Georg Gadamer has said that there are as many interpretations of the phenomenological method as there are practitioners of it. I have decided to spare the reader a detailed historical and systematic detour into the meaning of the phenomenological method, but we should at least understand in what sense it will be applied in our methodology. The two essential components of the phenomenological method that we will employ are, first, its battle cry, “to the things themselves”; and second, its descriptive method. My approach combines these two elements and may be stated as the “description of the things themselves.” When the phenomenological method is applied to the study of revelation-inspiration, “the things themselves” are the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture. Phenomenological analysis attempts to describe the facts without resorting to hidden, behind-the-scenes sources, ideas,

HOME PAGE 50

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

or causes. With this approach, one has to work with concrete realities and what is implicit in them. Some strategic steps will guide this presentation. First, to better understand the problem of revelation-inspiration, we will take a closer look at the central claim of Scripture concerning its origin. Next, we will examine the cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration to gain the necessary perspective for analyzing and interpreting it as a divine-human event. Specifically, we need to become aware of the elements of knowledge and the way in which knowledge takes place as human activity. Then, we will address the question of possibility. Is the phenomenon of revelation-inspiration that we are attempting to analyze even possible, or does it present an intrinsic contradiction? Following this, we will analyze four models of revelationinspiration: the classical (thought revelation and verbal inspiration), the modern (encounter revelation and human inspiration), the Protestant (verbal inspiration), and the historical-cognitive (cf. section 3). The book will then conclude by introducing the issue of the reliability of Scripture and the hermeneutical role of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration.

ยง16. LIMITATIONS There are obvious limitations to our presentation of revelation-inspiration. Most of these follow logically from the introductory nature of the presentation. In attempting to introduce readers to a complex discussion, the need for simplification and clarity frequently conspires against the specificity of technical and scholarly analysis. So at times, I have compromised technical precision for the sake of clarity, while at other times complexity demanded that I sacrifice clarity. Furthermore, since this book is an introduction to the general trends of interpretation and the study of revelation-inspiration, I have had to limit my selection of issues and trends to a manageable amount. Another limitation flows from the hermeneutical approach to the study of revelation-inspiration that I am following in this book (ยง2.5.c). Since the hermeneutical approach to revelation-inspiration aims to understand how the process took place and how the divine and human agencies interacted to

HOME PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SPECIAL REVELATION

create the Bible, we will not discuss the doctrine of Scripture found in the Bible or the history of interpretation of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration in detail. Moreover, the model methodology (see Chapter 7) I will use to study and compare the various interpretations of revelation inspriation does not require an exhaustive covering of these areas of study

§17. REVIEW Before beginning our study, we have paused to reflect on the nature of the task before us. In this chapter, we have reviewed the goal, source, nature, structure, problem, method, and strategy of our attempt to understand revelation-inspiration. In other words, we have looked at the road before us and chosen the best possible route to our destination. • Goal The goal of the study of revelation-inspiration is to determine the origin of the Bible. Specifically, the origin of Scripture involves a twofold process including a foundational, cognitive aspect and a subordinate, literary aspect. The goal of revelation-inspiration is to clarify this process in all its aspects. • Source The source of any doctrine of revelation-inspiration must be Scripture itself. The original events that created it are not available for research. The results of those events – the Bible as a book, existing today – constitute the “fact of revelation-inspiration.” So, if we are to understand Scripture’s origin, we must start with the only thing we have: the book itself. The fact of revelation includes the doctrine and phenomena of the Bible, which together comprise the concrete properties of Scripture as a book. • Nature The investigation of Scripture’s origin is theoretical in nature. In other words, since Scripture does not explicitly describe the process of

HOME PAGE 52

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY revelation-inspiration, we are left to find the best possible explanation of where it came from. Any resulting doctrine is theoretical in nature and hypothetical in certainty, but reaches its highest degree of surety when we pursue it within the bounds of the sola Scriptura principle, without resorting to extrabiblical philosophical foundations (i.e., assertions about divine and human nature).

• Structure The structure of revelation involves two agents: God and the Bible writer. Any interpretation of the revelation-inspiration event directly depends on one’s presuppositions about divine and human nature, and how they interact. • Essence Revelation-inspiration consists of a cognitive-linguistic, divine-human relation, that is, an event through which knowledge was revealed by God and written down in human language by the writer. • Problem The basic problem with revelation-inspiration flows from the dichotomy between its doctrine and its phenomena. Scripture declares God is its author. Yet, it also describes what the phenomena of Scripture corroborate: the Bible has been written by human beings. How should we approach this issue? By fully considering the roles of both the divine and human agencies. • Method and Strategy. In this book, we will follow an analytical-descriptive methodology (phenomenology). Thus, I will attempt to describe the major elements involved in the origin of Scripture, and the main models of interpretation present in Christian theology. This study includes the following steps: •The biblical claim. •The cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration: exploring the structure of cognition.

HOME PAGE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SPECIAL REVELATION •The possibility of revelation-inspiration: nature and supernature. •The classical model: thought or verbal inspiration. •The modern model: encounter revelation and human inspiration. •The Protestant model: verbal inspiration. •The historical-cognitive model. •Hermeneutical effects of the historical-cognitive model. •The truthfulness of Scripture.

HOME PAGE

4. THE BIBLICAL CLAIM

Finally, we are on the road! We have introduced ourselves to the issue. Now we must turn our attention to the fact of revelation-inspiration— Scripture itself. In this chapter we will consider two important questions: What does Scripture say about its origin and, does it tell us who its author is? The witness of Scripture regarding its origin is probably the most important piece of evidence we will consider. So, we must understand the biblical claim before we can assess it. In this chapter, we will analyze two passages about the Bible’s origin: Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, and Peter’s in 2 Peter 1:21. Paul’s statement presents the issue in broad strokes, while Peter’s goes more into detail, so we will begin by considering 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

§18. 2 TIMOTHY 3:16 1. Text and Context In the immediate context of this segment of his letter, Paul finishes his description of the spiritual condition characterizing the people living in the final days of earth’s history. After addressing some of the dangers expected at that time (3:1), Paul exhorts Timothy to “continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are

HOME PAGE THE BIBLICAL CLAIM

able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired (qeo,pneu stoj) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:14-17). A first reading of the text reveals that Paul is not speaking about the issue of revelation-inspiration explicitly, but about the role of Scripture in the life of the believer. Through faith in Christ Jesus, sacred writings (i`era. gra,mmata) can give us wisdom that leads to salvation. Though Paul is doubtless referring here to the Old Testament, his statement describes the role and origin of all canonical Scripture.1 We must not overlook the fact that Paul is emphasizing the Bible’s role in salvation. Usually, the goal of modern and postmodern assertions about revelation-inspiration appears to be either to affirm or to negate the truth of Scripture and its authority for the believer. However, we must understand revelation-inspiration in terms of the role the Bible plays in God’s plan of salvation. Paul’s reference to the origin of Scripture is brief: “All Scripture [is] God-breathed,” or, “all inspired Scripture (pa/ s a grafh. qeo,pneu stoj).” The text qualifies the word “Scripture” with the adjective “God-breathed.” Our word “inspiration” comes from the Latin translation “divinitus inspirata.” However, Paul uses the word qeo,pneu stoj. This word, not used anywhere else in the Bible, is a composite of qeo,j (“God”) and pne,w (“to blow,” “wind,” “air in movement”). Significantly, pne,w is related to the noun pneu /ma, which usually refers to the spirit of human beings or to the person of the Holy Spirit. As an adjective, qeo,pneu stoj describes an action of divine breathing. Since we have no idea what “divine breathing” means, we must understand this word metaphorically. The text tells us that God is directly involved in the creation of Scripture; however, it is vague as to the manner of divine involvement. What part does God play in the origination of Scripture? What is involved in the process of divine breathing? The text does not answer these questions; it simply states God’s involvement in the origination of Scripture.

HOME PAGE 56

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

2. Divine Action What kind of action does the word qeo,p neu stoj indicate? Paul did not use readily available words such as “speak,” “write,” or “dictate.” These words were probably too specific to adequately describe God’s role in the creation of the Bible. A less specific term was needed to describe an action that had taken many different forms of expression. After all, God “spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways (polu tro,pw j)” (Hebrews 1:1). Broad as it may be, qeo,pneu stoj involves writing; otherwise God’s action would not produce Scripture, but would exhaust itself in the act of divine breathing. This passage in 2 Timothy indicates that the end result of God’s activity is the text of Scripture, or grafh, , a word that in the New Testament is used only for sacred writing. Thus, this text expresses a simple but farreaching assertion: God is the originator and author of the writings of Scripture. Moreover, according to Paul, “inspiration” (“God-breathing”) is “verbal” in the sense that it reaches the very words of Scripture (Figure 1).

Figure 1: God’s Inspiration Reaches the Words of Scripture Notice, however, that the text does not give us an explanation, theory, or model of the way in which the divine authorship takes place. An important distinction must be drawn at this point. We should distinguish between what the text affirms and our theological interpretations of what it describes. This distinction should help us avoid the twin dangers of either reading into the passage the conservative-fundamentalist theory of

HOME PAGE THE BIBLICAL CLAIM

“verbal inspiration” (see chapter 11), or of disregarding the verbal outcome of revelation-inspiration. After our brief overview of the biblical claim on revelation-inspiration, we will consider several theological models concerning this problem. One of these models is known as the “verbal” theory of inspiration. While the verbal theory of inspiration agrees with Paul that the outcome of inspiration reaches the words of Scripture, its explanation of the process through which God achieved this end is not supported by this text or any other in Scripture. A detailed theological analysis is required to evaluate the claims of any theory of revelation-inspiration. Paul’s statement gives us data that should not be overlooked. According to Paul, God’s breathing reaches the very words (grafh, ). Paul, however, does not explain what God does in and through His breathing. Scripture has not given an explanation as to the way in which this took place nor what it means for interpreting the Bible. Consequently, any statement on these issues falls into the category of theory. Embracing or rejecting the verbal theory of inspiration does not depend on Paul’s affirmation of the verbal outcome of revelation-inspiration. The verbal theory of inspiration we will consider in Chapter 11 is not the only way in which Paul’s assertion can be understood. However, no theorizing should ignore the biblical claim that God’s inspiration reaches the level of human words.

3. Human Action Paul’s statement is brief and to the point, yet it is also incomplete. Did God write Scripture? The text does not say. The unusual word selected by Paul to describe God’s role seems to stem from the distinction between author and writer. While the text strongly affirms God’s authorship of Scripture, it does not say God is also the writer. The statement we are analyzing is not interested in the question of writing, but in the question of authorship. There Paul is clear: Scripture was authored by God. What difference is there between an author and a writer? An author is the originator of the ideas and contents of his or her writings. A writer is one who produces words, sentences, paragraphs— the literary work itself. Generally, an author is almost always a writer. Writers, however, are not

HOME PAGE 58

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

always authors. For example, in an act of plagiarism, a person steals others’ ideas and presents them as his or her own. A plagiarist is a writer, but not an author. The two do not have to coincide in the same person. In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul affirms God as the author, but not necessarily the writer, of Scripture. In addressing both the question of authorship and the question of writing, Peter agrees by stressing that God originated Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21). Yet, Peter goes on to say that Scripture was written by human beings. Does this mean that the writers of Scripture were plagiarizing God’s ideas? Since plagiarism generally means stealing someone’s ideas, the term cannot apply to biblical authors. But how should we understand the relationship between the divine author and the human writers? What did God do? What did the human writers do? These questions, prompted by Paul’s statement, are not answered in his writings or elsewhere in Scripture. Theologians have attempted to answer these and other related issues. The result of their efforts is the doctrine of the revelation-inspiration of Scripture.

§19. 2 PETER 1: 20-21 1. Context After reviewing various aspects of the Christian life, Peter exhorts his readers to diligently demonstrate Christian virtues (2 Peter 1:10-11). Then, he underlines the fact that Christians need to be constantly reminded of the truth they already know and practice (1:12-13). Knowing that he does not have much longer to live, Peter considers the process through which God’s revelation is passed along from one generation to the next. He wants to make certain that the constant reviewing of truth will continue after his death (1:14-15), specifically the incarnation, ministry, and death of Jesus. He specifically rejects the notion that God’s revelation in Christ was a collection of “cleverly devised tales” (1:16), but was in fact truth. Peter goes on to list the grounds on which Christian belief in Jesus Christ stands. First, he points to the believers’own experiences as “eyewitnesses of His majesty” (1:16) and describes what he, John and James saw at the

HOME PAGE THE BIBLICAL CLAIM

transfiguration also described in the gospels (1:17-18). But sensoryperception experiences were not, for Peter, the only grounds for Christian faith. He also points to the “prophetic word” (1:19), or Scripture. Even though Peter was unaware at the time that the written gospels would become part of the sacred canon, it is clear that the testimony about Christ’s ministry, death and resurrection is part of the “prophetic word” and has become a ground of Christian truth. Peter then briefly describes the salvific role of the prophetic word. Scripture functions, he explains, as a “lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts” (1:19). Scripture brings the light of the knowledge of God to the world. It is not light in itself, but it communicates the Lord’s message through its words. Human beings are depicted as dwelling in darkness, a metaphor for meaninglessness and the absence of wisdom just as light symbolizes knowledge and truth. God’s goal in authoring the Bible is to produce a change in people’s hearts and minds. He intends to replace the darkness of human thoughts with the light of his own divine knowledge and wisdom. The purpose of salvation is not merely understanding Scripture’s ideas and teachings, but the rising of the “morning star” in the hearts of human beings, a reference to Christ (cf. Revelation 22:16). Through the testimony of Scripture, Christ becomes Lord to those who through faith receive Him. Peter seems to be stating that the basis of Christian belief is neither the sensory-perception experience of the presence of God, nor the existence of written communication of God’s teachings and acts of salvation in the prophetic word. The real ground of Christian faith is the believer’s personal experience when Christ enters his or her life. But the pivotal role of the written word cannot be overemphasized. Without it, the “morning star”could not rise in the hearts of human beings.

2. Text Within this immediate context, Peter turns our attention to the way in which Scripture was originated. The New American Standard Bible renders Peter’s statement as follows: “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever

HOME PAGE 60

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21). To study this statement effectively, we must translate the Greek as literally as possible, understand what Peter is addressing, and become aware of some special terms he uses. Since English translations often hide the rough edges of the original with a smooth translation, what follows is my own literal rendering of Peter’s statement: “Knowing this first: every prophecy of Scripture does not come into being (gi,netai) from [one’s] own interpretation (ev pilu , s ew j, i.e., “explanation, exposition”), for not by the will of man was ever prophecy brought about (h v ne,cqh , cf. from fe,rw ), but men spoke from God being led (fero,menoi) by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

3. Subject Matter The subject matter that Peter addresses in this statement is explicitly formulated— the origin (gi,nomai) of every prophecy of Scripture. How do the contents of the Bible come to be? The question is that of revelationinspiration, and Peter answers directly. If our doctrine of Scripture is to come from Scripture itself, the importance of this statement cannot be overemphasized. Peter says that the prophetic content of Scripture does not spring from the imagination or will of human beings. Instead, the origin of Scripture can be traced back to human beings led by the Holy Spirit, who spoke from God. Before we explore what this means for the origin of the Bible, we must examine the word “prophecy.”

4. Connotation Since the text speaks about the “coming into being” (gi,netai) of “prophecy”, we may wonder whether this verse speaks to the process through which the whole of Scripture was originated, or only to the process that produced what we normally think of as prophecy. Does Peter’s statement apply to all the Bible, or prophetic discourse only? The biblical term “prophecy” (profh tei,a) has four main connotations of meaning. First, it refers to the gift (ca, r isma) or ability to prophesy (cf.

HOME PAGE THE BIBLICAL CLAIM

Romans 12:6). In this sense, the word emphasizes the divine cause behind prophetic utterances. Second, in other contexts, the word “prophecy” relates to the prophetic activity that the divine gift generates (cf. Revelation 11:6). In still other places, “prophecy” specifically refers to the result of the activity, the utterance itself (1 Corinthians 14:6). Finally, “prophecy”alludes to the c o n t e n t , o r t e a c h i n g , o f t h e u t t e r a n c e s . Taken together, prophetic content exists within the utterances, which are produced by the prophetic activity originating in the divine gift. In other words, the teaching of a particular statement can be considered prophetic because it ultimately comes from God via the prophetic gift. Generally, we associate the terms “prophet” and “prophecy” with the anticipation of future events. However, in the words of Louw and Nida, “foretelling the future was only a relatively minor aspect of the prophet’s function.”2 In New Testament times, the word “prophecy” applied to any inspired utterance proclaimed on behalf of and on the authority of God.3 In the context of 2 Peter 1:20-21, the word “prophecy” could refer either to the prediction of future events or simply to an utterance proclaimed on behalf of and on the authority of God. If Peter is speaking of future events only, our text applies only to that type of prophetic discourse. If, on the other hand, he uses the word “prophecy” simply for utterances, he is writing of the general structure through which God communicates with human beings. It is difficult to determine whether Peter meant utterances of future events or utterances in general. The immediate context suggests that Peter had in mind the Old Testament witness about Jesus Christ. At first, this indicates Peter is referring to prophetic predictions of Jesus’ historical activities. However, we should not forget that Jesus himself used Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms as witnesses to himself and his work at the cross (cf. Luke 24: 27, 44). Thus, within the context of the New Testament, it seems more likely that Peter is envisioning the entire Old Testament in this statement. Now, are the writings of the New Testament by extension included in Peter’s statement? It cannot be referring to them explicitly, at least as we have them now, because they had not yet been compiled or deemed canonical. With that in mind, can we still apply this text to how the New

HOME PAGE 62

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

Testament came into being? Would such an application be acceptable from a scholarly viewpoint? To apply Peter’s statement to the whole of Scripture would be wrong exegetically, but correct from a systematic perspective. Since exegesis is concerned with the meaning of the text, we cannot say it speaks about something that did not exist at the time. But because systematic theology is geared to clarify questions about past, present, and future realities, we can gain insights about the origin of both the Old and New Testaments from a text that only applies to the Old Testament. We learn about revelationinspiration from Peter’s statement, and use those insights to make progress toward an understanding of the issue as a whole. It is in the latter sense that Peter’s statement illuminates the process that generated not only the Old, but also the New Testament.

5. No Human Interpretation In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul approaches the origin of Scripture with a forceful statement about God’s causal involvement in the generation of the words, but he does not discuss how God did this. Peter’s approach to the same issue implies an interaction present in the writing process. Paul tells us that “God breathed Scripture.” Peter tells us that “men spoke from God being led (fero,menoi) by the Holy Spirit”(2 Peter 1:21, translation mine). Peter explicitly tells us an almost obvious fact: Scripture was written by human beings. Yet he does not contradict Paul’s statement, because he adds that the human agency acted under the leading of the Holy Spirit. Both God and human beings are involved in the generation of Scripture. The way this basic divine-human interaction occurs is the issue the doctrine of revelation-inspiration attempts to clarify. Peter begins this task by bringing in the question of interpretation. Human activity generates Scripture. But Peter carefully and forcefully qualifies the role of human agents: “Knowing this first: every prophecy of Scripture does not come into being (gi,netai) from [one’s] own interpretation (ev pilu , s ew j)” (2 Peter 1:20). At no time was Scripture produced on the basis of human interpretations. The Greek word ev pi,lu sij literally means a “release” or “liberation”; figuratively, it connotes “explanation, exposition,

HOME PAGE THE BIBLICAL CLAIM

or interpretation.” Because the text is speaking of the coming-into-being or origin of Scripture, ev pi,lu ,sij cannot refer to the action of the reader. Instead, Peter argues that even when human beings were involved in writing the Bible, they were not the sources of the material we find there. Human activity is involved, but it is not the source from which the explanations, expositions, or interpretations of Scripture spring. If the human writers were not the ones who created the views and teachings of Scripture, where did they come from? Peter answers that “not by the will of man was ever a prophecy brought about (h v ne,cqh , cf. from fe,rw ), but men spoke from God being led (fero,menoi) by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, translation mine). Again, the human authorship of Scripture is denied. This time Peter denies that the will of human beings was involved in the creation of Scripture. What, then, did human beings do? They spoke (ev la,lhsan, i.e., proclaimed, communicated) the messages that came from God as author. Speech as writing is the expression of thought. Thus, God’s direction accompanied the writers of Scripture not only when they wrote, but also when they spoke. What they said, however, was not out of their own reasoning, imagination, or creation. It was a manifestation of God’s thoughts and actions.

6. Divine Inspiration The text unequivocally affirms the direct involvement of God in the creation of the Bible. However, Peter does not explain how the divine and human agencies interface. Like Paul’s word qeo,spneu stoj, fero,menoi appears only once in the Bible. fero,menoi is a verbal form of the word fe,rw . Various inflections of this verb appear more than sixty times in the New Testament, meaning to “bear, carry, carry along, carry forward, bring along, move, drive, and lead.” Peter uses the word in the passive voice as a participle modifying the word “men.” In other words, the action here is performed by the Holy Spirit to or on the men. Thus, “men were led or carried along by the Holy Spirit.” So, the Bible began with the Holy Spirit acting on the writers. These passages sound more like a claim about Scripture’s origin than a theological explanation of the process involved in it. Peter maintains that

HOME PAGE 64

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

Scripture proceeds from God and that it is written by human beings. How should we understand him? How should we understand Paul’s affirmation of the divine origin of Scripture? The Bible does not clarify these questions. As we attempt to find answers of our own, we embark on the task of theology, a search for understanding. But Paul’s and Peter’s statements present one very important fact which no doctrine of revelation-inspiration should ignore. They teach that God is the author of all Scripture. Theology should find a way to understand how this took place and at the same time be able to account for the human side that shows up in how the Bible was written (the phenomena of Scripture). At this point we have completed the scenario required to understand the development of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration.

7. Paul and Peter on Inspiration As we noted earlier, our term “inspiration” comes from the Latin rendering of the Greek words qeo,pneu stoj and fero,menoi. One might say these two words encapsulate the biblical concept of inspiration. This idea refers to the origin of Scripture, yet in a general, nontechnical way. Earlier in our study, we defined revelation as the process through which the contents of Scripture were generated in the mind of the writer, while inspiration is the process through which the contents already present in the prophet’s mind were put into writing (§4:2-4). Neither Paul nor Peter gave this technical meaning to the term “inspiration.” Their approach is broader and less specific. However, the two words that the Bible uses to denote the notion of inspiration— qeo,pneu stoj and fero,menoi— include in their scope these technical descriptions of revelation and inspiration. Thus while our analysis does not contradict the biblical idea, the student should be careful not to read the technical definitions of revelation and inspiration back into the biblical texts.

HOME PAGE THE BIBLICAL CLAIM

These texts present biblical inspiration as the action through which God generated Scripture. Paul sees God’s action (inspiration) moving from the divine being to the writing, while Peter explains that God’s action reaches the writer. Paul says that God “breathes” (inspires) Scripture, while Peter affirms that the Holy Spirit “carries along” (inspires) human beings. Are these views contradictory? The answer would be yes if they were saying different things about the same issue. A closer examination, however, shows that they are complementary pronouncements. Paul affirms that God’s activity generates – inspires – the writing without giving any consideration to how that end is achieved. Peter, without denying Paul’s assertion, focuses specifically on the methodological structure through which God does the inspiring. Paul speaks of the broad structure of inspiration from primary cause, God, to specific goal, Scripture; Peter helps us to grasp the method which moves from primary cause to specific goal: the “carrying along” of the human being by the Holy Spirit. Paul’s statement about “God-breathing” includes and requires Peter’s “carrying along by the Holy Spirit.”Conversely, Peter’s idea of “carrying along by the Holy Spirit” is included within Paul’s “God-

Figure 2: Paul’s and Peter’s Views Complement Each Other

HOME PAGE 66

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

breathing” (Figure 2).

8. Divine Author, Human Writers As we consider the Bible’s origin, we need to differentiate between the role of author and writer. Generally, the author and writer of a literary work are the same person. Frequently, however, sports figures, artists, or common folk involved in unusual circumstances write a book. Usually, their language skills are limited and insufficient to produce quality writing. They have something interesting to say, yet they are not able to express it in written form. Their literary limitations are solved through the assistance provided by a “ghost writer,” a person with highly developed writing skills. However, the ghost writer has nothing to say; he or she is not an author. In other words, a ghost writer does not create or originate the stories or ideas we read in the book. The author creates what the book says, but not the way it says it. The responsibility for what is said belongs to the author, not the writer. In the creation of the Bible, something similar takes place. God is the author of Scripture, but not the writer. Conversely, prophets and apostles wrote the Bible, but were not its authors.

§20. REVIEW • Paul and Peter speak of inspiration for practical purposes in ministry. Speaking of the moral condition of the world at the end of time, Paul mentions the issue of inspiration to reinforce his explanation of the Bible’s role in salvation. Peter verbalizes the fact of inspiration in order to strengthen the Christian experience of his readers. • The word “inspiration” is not used in Scripture. Our word “inspiration” comes from the Latin translation of the Greek words qeo,pneu stoj and fer,omenoi. qeo,pneu stoj means “God-breathed” and fero,menoi means “carrying along.”

HOME PAGE THE BIBLICAL CLAIM

• God’s “inspiration” reaches the words of Scripture. In a very broad statement, Paul makes the point that God originates Scripture. Paul speaks clearly of God’s action as being “verbal” in its results; that is, inspiration somehow touches the words of the Bible. But his statement does not clarify how this happens. Consequently, Paul is not necessarily supporting the “verbal theory of inspiration.” The verbal theory of inspiration is only one of several possible ways to understand God’s involvement in producing the words of Scripture. • God is the author of Scripture. Paul’s term “God-breathing” unveils the divine involvement in the origination of Scripture. The term qeo,pneu stoj is purposely broad and, therefore, includes the processes through which the contents of Scripture were generated (revelation) and through which the revealed contents were put into writing (inspiration). Paul’s statement on “inspiration” indicates that God’s creativity (and not human beings’) is the source of Scripture. • In the creation of Scripture no human interpretation was involved. Even when human beings wrote Scripture, Peter explains that they were not the source of any of the material Scripture sets forth. • Human beings spoke under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. God is the author of Scripture, yet it was written by human beings. The process through which human beings conceived and wrote Scripture originated in God and was directed and communicated by the Holy Spirit. • The biblical concept of inspiration is a claim, not an explanation. Scripture does not explain the divine-human process that generated Scripture. • The biblical claim of inspiration confers divine authority on Scripture. If God, and not human beings, is the author of Scripture, it logically follows that the Bible is a unique book. Its uniqueness rests in its divine

HOME PAGE 68

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN T HEOLOGY

origin. Since God authored the Bible, he conferred on it his authority; therefore, the authority of Scripture does not reside in itself, but in its author. The authority of the Bible always rests in its mediatorial function between God’s thoughts and human understanding, between God’s actions and human life. • The biblical claim requires a theological explanation. The Bible’s claim that it is authored by God and written by human beings, is not immediately understandable. As believers accept this claim by faith, each of them forms in their minds a picture of how it took place. Thus, a variety of understandings about revelation-inspiration are formed without necessarily being expressed. Since the process is never explicitly described in Scripture, believers cannot know whether their mental pictures of revelation-inspiration are correct without exploring the issue theologically. • The doctrine of revelation-inspiration must consider the biblical claim. Paul and Peter write that God is the author of Scripture. As we try to understand revelation-inspiration, we should not ignore their claim. Moreover, we should carefully include all the pieces of the puzzle. The pieces to be included in revelation-inspiration fall into two main categories— the biblical doctrine of Scripture (what Scripture says about itself) and the phenomena of Scripture (what we find as we read and study Scripture).

ENDNOTES 1

See Gerhard F. Hasel, “Divine Inspiration and the Canon of the Bible,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5, no. 1 (1994): 68-105. 2

J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed (New York: Michael S. Bushell, 1995), s.v. profh, t hj.

HOME PAGE THE BIBLICAL CLAIM 3

Ibid.

HOME PAGE

5. WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

In this chapter, we will explore the structure of human knowledge. In other words, our purpose is to gain a basic awareness about the act through which human beings come to know things. Some readers will wonder why a philosophical issue that, at first glance, appears totally unrelated to revelation-inspiration should be included in this study. Some may even object to such inclusion on grounds that revelation-inspiration is not a philosophical, but a theological matter. Very few readers will immediately see the connection between understanding how human knowledge takes place and the doctrine of revelation-inspiration. So we will begin this chapter with a brief explanation of the cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration. Only when these issues become clear in our minds will we understand why the study and interpretation of revelationinspiration requires explicit awareness of how people know. We will explore the classical, modern, and postmodern views of knowledge, and conclude with a brief overview of some key ways in which human knowledge is involved in the question of revelation-inspiration. Although the issues addressed in this section may be foreign to many readers, I cannot overemphasize their importance for the study of revelation-inspiration. The answer to how people know is always presupposed in the issue and doctrine of revelation-inspiration. Becoming aware of how knowledge takes place sets the foundation for interpreting the models of revelation-inspiration produced

HOME PAGE WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

by Christian theologians. It is also key to understanding how the minds of the biblical writers were engaged in the writing of Scripture.

§21. THE COGNITIVE NATURE OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION Revelation-inspiration, as we have defined it in this book, deals with the origin of the ideas, information, and words of the Bible. At its essence, the doctrine of revelation-inspiration tries to clarify the origin of theological knowledge as given in Scripture. As we will see, some models of revelationinspiration argue that God is involved in the generation of biblical teachings and information. Other models, however, argue that all the contents of Scripture are of human origin. In spite of their differences, both models clearly deal with the cognitive process through which the Bible came to be. The phenomena of Scripture give us another angle from which to view the cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration. Scripture is made up of language: letters, words and sentences. But the ideas found in those sentences come from somewhere – from someone’s mind. A linguistic phenomenon flows from a cognitive source. Although the process of knowledge and linguistic expression are two different things, they cannot be separated. Words and knowledge belong together. Words require and imply knowledge, while knowledge requires words for expression. Knowledge, however, is the ultimate ground for words and their meanings. Recent developments in the philosophy of language testify to this fact. In the previous century, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Gadamer, among others, studied the function of human knowledge from the starting point of language. During the last portion of the eighteenth century, Kant studied how human knowledge operates, starting from an analysis of judgments. Judgments and language are both products of a human mind, a fact which entitles them to be primary data for studying the functioning of human knowledge. In other words, judgments and language imply the existence of a mind to produce them. Where there are words, a thinking agent must somehow be producing them. Thus, the phenomena of Scripture also reveal the cognitive nature of revelation-inspiration.

HOME PAGE 72

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

If the issue we are investigating is cognitive, our analysis will always assume an understanding of what cognition is. In other words, if we are studying understanding or thinking, we must know what it means to understand or to think. Unfortunately, our awareness of how we obtain and use knowledge relies more on our daily cognitive experiences than on reflection on how those experiences take place. This is true not only for everyday people, but also for many theologians and scientists. In other words, we all know what knowledge is because we are experiencing it all the time. Yet, most of us are not in the habit of analyzing and describing in words what actually takes place when we know – when we experience knowledge. Consequently, the ideas about knowledge we assume are foggy – we don’t know how we know – and lack the precision required in the analysis of revelation-inspiration. The clearer we conceptualize knowledge, the better our analysis of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration will be. So, we must become familiar with the activity of knowledge.

§22. THE COGNITIVE NATURE OF THE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION First we must distinguish between the revelation-inspiration events that originated Scripture and our interpretation of them. In §21, we learned that the event of revelation-inspiration is cognitive. That is, the goal of our study is to understand an event that happens in the mind. However, we should also recognize that our understanding of the revelation-inspiration events also happens in the mind. When we strive to understand the cognitive events which resulted in the Bible, we find ourselves also performing a cognitive act. When theologians reflect on any cognitive issue, the nature of their task is also cognitive. Thus, the formulation of doctrines about the origin of Scripture also belong to the area of human knowledge. This is another reason why we include the issue of knowledge in our study of revelation-inspiration. Understanding the structure of knowledge is a helpful tool in analyzing the history of theological interpretations of the doctrine of

HOME PAGE WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

revelation-inspiration. In the following section, I will attempt to introduce the student to a simplified description of the act of knowledge.

Â§23. PAUSE: WARNING AND ENCOURAGEMENT Before I proceed to describe knowledge, let me both warn and encourage you. You must be aware of the difficulty of the task in which we are about to embark. Even though what follows is a simplified explanation, the issue remains difficult because it remains concealed from our everyday experience. This warning applies not only to readers introducing themselves to theological reflection, but also to scholars. Scholarship requires awareness and use of data but scholars often forget about the cognitive processes through which data is obtained and interpreted. Consequently, some readers may need to go over this description of knowledge more than once. After reading, some students may get unduly discouraged, thinking that they do not have what it takes to reflect theologically. Others may try to lay the blame for their lack of understanding on the writer. In this context, let me add to the warning a word of encouragement. The difficulty in understanding what follows is neither due to a deficiency of the readerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intelligence nor to the intentional design of the writer, but to the nature of the issue before us. There are two reasons this issue is difficult to understand. First, we can grasp the cognitive act of human knowledge only through self-reflection. Second, the description of knowledge deals with a reality difficult or even impossible to visualize. An analogy between sports and knowledge may help with this point. Basketball players are not usually able to explain in words what they do on the basketball court, but by reviewing the game on tape they can begin to understand how well they played. It is only after playing the game that the moment of self-reflection can take place. The same is true of knowledge. Scholars and students go about their business of getting and analyzing information in the same way basketball players play: they just

HOME PAGE 74

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

do it. They do not think about it. Only after giving thought to a particular issue does the moment of self-reflection take place: “How did we do it?” The difficulty, however, is that most of us are not used to this kind of exercise. But eventually anyone can get the hang of it. A second difficulty builds on the first. The subject matter we are supposed to focus on in the moment of self-reflection is difficult to visualize. For basketball players, self-reflection comes easily because they can see themselves moving on the TV screen. This, unfortunately, is not the case when we reflect on the way we think. There is no way we can “tape” our mind during the thought process and visualize ourselves in the act or process of self-reflection. I will try to help the reader visualize what we cannot see with simple diagrams.

§24. THE COGNITIVE ACT OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE What elements are present when one knows anything at all? By “anything at all” I mean, for instance, a brick, a dream, a feeling, an idea, a text, a jar, a musical piece— whatever can become an object of knowledge for us. In the structure of knowledge, there are three main components (Figure 1). The first component is the human agent or cognitive subject. When we think, we always think about something. Thus, the first component in the structure of the act of knowledge is the subject that produces the activity: the person. The second component is the object or content of the act performed by the subject. When we think we always think about something. That something is the object to which our cognitive activity is addressed. The object is anything we can know. So an object could be a text, a letter, a sentence, a map, a car, a nail, a sound, an image, a dream, a desire, an emotion. The third component is the relationship established between the subject and the object. FBI or CIA documents, for instance, are objects of knowledge, yet they are not objects of knowledge for most of us because we have no access to them; there is no relationship between the subject and the object.

HOME PAGE WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

Figure 1: Components Involved in Knowledge Formation

The arrow in Figure 1 represents the third element or the relationship between subject and object. It shows that the human subject performs the action of knowledge. In synthesis, we can say that the structure of knowledge always involves three componentsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; subject, object, and their relationship (Figure 1). Yet, how does this relationship take place? What roles do the subject and the object play in the formation of knowledge? Who decides the content of knowledge? Does the object determine the content of knowledge? Does the subject become the source of knowledge? Or, do both the subject and the object together cause the content of knowledge? This relationship has been understood in three main ways: the classical (objective), the modern (subjective), and the postmodern (hermeneutical) views.

1. The Classical, Objective Position Early on in the history of Western civilization, this view determined not only the shape and development of philosophy, but also of theology and the socalled hard sciences. Originating primarily with Plato and Aristotle, this view is known as realism (in ontology) and intellectualism (in epistemology). This interpretation of the subject-object relationship maintains that the object determines the content of knowledge. The subject (human being) is conceived

HOME PAGE 76

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

as passively receiving the information from the object (Figure 2). According to the classical view, the act of knowledge consists in faithfully receiving all the information coming from the object.

Figure 2: Classical View: The Object Determines the Content of Knowledge Because the object determines the knowledge that the subject receives, scientific knowledge is said to be “objective.” Any contribution to the content of knowledge proceeding from the side of the subject is conceived as a biased, “subjective” distortion of objective scientific knowledge. Consequently, the classical view of knowledge strongly encouraged a methodical elimination of any and all subjective contributions to objective knowledge. According to this interpretation, the cognitive subject (human being) passively receives all the contents of knowledge from its relationship with the object. The way a video camera functions may help some readers to visualize this view. According to the classical position, the cognitive subject – the mind of the person – operates in a fashion similar to the operation of a tape in a video camera. As the tape in the camera passively receives what is imprinted on it from external objects by way of lenses and computer chips, the cognitive subject receives the knowledge and stores it in its brain from external objects by way of sensory perception. As the tape in the video camera does not contribute to the content of the picture taken, neither does the cognitive subject contribute to the content of knowledge.

HOME PAGE WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

2. The Modern, Subjective Position The idea that contributions generated by human beings (cognitive subjects) determine the content of knowledge of the object (Figure 3) can be traced to Immanuel Kant and German idealism. According to this view, the human act

Figure 3: Modern View: The Subject Determines the Contents of Knowledge of knowledge is a projection of the object by the subject. What is being projected outside the subject is what we normally call “reality.” What we see as the “external object,” is only a mental projection. In this view, the act of knowledge can be compared to a movie projector (the subject, or human being) showing images on a screen; the object is the image on the screen, created by the projector. The distinctive characteristic of this interpretation of the structure of knowledge is the complete command conferred to the human subject. The human subject is actively (if unconsciously) determining the basic content of knowledge, while the object passively receives the contents from the human agent. Due to the belief that the person involved is the foundation and principal contributor in the formation of knowledge, the modern understanding of the structure of knowledge is subjective. The modern view is the direct opposite of the classical view; instead of receiving knowledge from the object, the human subject confers knowledge on the object. The modern and classical views, however, agree on one thing: objective knowledge does not include the world of historical, everyday, life experience. To reach objective knowledge, the mind must systematically eliminate any and all contents that originate in personal and historical experiences. Personal

HOME PAGE 78

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

experiences give rise to opinion, never to objective knowledge. The classical view attains objectivity by claiming that reason is able to grasp the reality of the object outside of the flow of a person’s experiences. The modern view claims that reason is able to escape the world of historical flux not by receiving, but by projecting the object into external reality. Human beings are able to project exactly the same characteristics or contents of a given object because human nature includes the basic patterns of objective knowledge. In the act of projecting knowledge, human beings use the patterns, categories, and forms that are universally shared by all of them. The modern and classical views are actually quite similar. However, they do disagree as to the origin of knowledge. Modern thinkers see knowledge as coming from the person, the subject, while classical authors assert that knowledge originates in the object. While the classical view is called realism, the modern position is known as idealism. The views do agree in the interpretation of the essence of knowledge. They see objectivity as the main characteristic of knowledge and share the conviction that objectivity is reached only when the cognitive subject eliminates all personal, historical experiences from the formation of knowledge. In short, knowledge is supposed to be universal and objective. It is objective because it does not include personal opinions, views, or the history of the cognitive subject. The modern understanding of knowledge is difficult to visualize because it runs against our common-sense experience. Drawing an analogy between “virtual reality”and the modern view of knowledge may help the reader to understand this view more clearly. Virtual reality is a computer-generated experience. In virtual reality, human subjects interact with a computer-generated projection that looks like reality, but is not. As is true with most analogies, our virtual reality analogy eventually breaks down. In virtual reality, the projection is made by a computer; while in knowledge, the projection is made by the same human being that perceives the projection as real, as if it were a dream. The point of the analogy is that as the computer projects reality, so does the subject, according to the modern view. In virtual reality, we see (know) what the

HOME PAGE WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

computer has projected. In the modern view, we know (see) what our own mindâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capabilities of knowledge have simultaneously projected. A criticism of these two positions is not necessary in this study. We need only to become aware of their existence because of their influence on how revelation-inspiration has been understood in the classical and modern periods.

3. The Hermeneutical Position Heidegger and Gadamer, among others, have propagated a third view that is foundational to postmodern thinking. This interpretation of the subject-object relationship maintains that knowledge is determined by the contribution of both the subject and the object. This view retains the classical conviction that the object contributes to the formation of knowledge, as well as the modern idea of a cognitive subject, actively contributing to the content of knowledge (Figure 4). In the hermeneutical view, the subject does not contribute by projecting the universal, innate categories or forms of objectivity, but rather by projecting the contents of its own concrete, historical experience. Knowledge is formed when the subject projects its experience to the object that confronts it. Here the notion of objectivity is radically reinterpreted because, for the first time, it includes the world of concrete experience that the classical and modern views consistently rejected from their definition of objectivity.

Figure 4: Postmodern Hermeneutical View: Subject and Object Contribute to Knowledge

HOME PAGE 80

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Familiarity with the way information takes place in a computer may explain how human knowledge takes place, according to the hermeneutical interpretation. To produce something with a computer, we need a physical body (hardware), programs (software), and data. Let us compare the program to the contribution of the cognitive subject, or person; the data to be processed (information that we type or scan into the computer), the contributions of the object; and the final product to knowledge (Figure 5). It is clear that in the case of the computer, the final result (often a printout) is produced by the combination of two factors— the program and the data. In the same way, knowledge, the final product, is reached by the combination of two contributing factors: the experience of the cognitive subject, and the object that is brought to his or her attention. The concrete, historical experiences that the cognitive subject brings to the activity of knowledge are known in technical jargon as “presuppositions” or “principles of interpretation.” The computer analogy points out something important about the hermeneutical view. When working with a computer, two different users can arrive at different results by using the same data. The reason for the different interpretations may be because the two users processed the data with different programs (Figure 6). In the same way, human beings produce different results

Figure 5: Computer Analogy (1) when addressing exactly the same issue or data because they work with different

HOME PAGE WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

“programs.”Life experiences differ from individual to individual and, therefore, are understood in different ways.

Figure 6: Computer Analogy (2) The experience of examining animal tissue through a microscope illustrates the role experience plays in the formation of knowledge, according to the hermeneutical view. A biology professor prepares a tissue to be observed under a powerful microscope. He then gathers ten biology seniors and ten seminary seniors, and gives them all the same assignment: examine the slide through the microscope and describe it. To no one’s surprise, the reports are different even though the slide is the same (Figure 6). Moreover, biology students seem to see more on the slide than do the seminary students. What is the difference? Is it in the slide (the object) or is it brought to the slide by the students (cognitive subject)? Obviously, it is the experience of biology seniors in observing, identifying, and describing different kinds of animal tissues. The presuppositions brought to the event of knowledge by each student formed a part of knowledge itself. This analogy clearly shows the active and conditioning role presuppositions play in the generation of knowledge.

§25. KNOWLEDGE AND REVELATION-INSPIRATION In this section, I will attempt to explain how knowledge as a human activity contributes to the study of revelation-inspiration. We must examine two

HOME PAGE 82

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

aspects of the structure of knowledge: analytical role and content.

1. Analytical Role I have chosen to follow the hermeneutical understanding of the structure of knowledge in this book. Together we will use it as a tool (program) to analyze the Bible, and the various doctrines of revelation-inspiration that theologians have produced throughout history (data). It is important to become acquainted with how the hermeneutical understanding of the structure of knowledge works when used as such a tool. As different computer programs analyze the same data and strive to achieve the same goal yet reach different results (Figure 6), so human beings process the same data (objects) with different presuppositions or principles and achieve different results. Because of our understanding of the components in the structure of knowledge, and the way they operate in the formation of knowledge, we are aware that any idea we may want to analyze, including revelation-inspiration, has been produced by using presuppositionsâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;what the cognitive subject contributes to the formation of knowledge. In other words, any time we analyze an idea, we know beforehand that it has been produced by using presuppositions and data. Understanding an idea requires analysis. We need to be aware of the various parts that form any such idea. These components may vary from idea to idea. Yet because of their cognitive nature, we know that data and presuppositions are two necessary components that are always involved in the creation of any idea. An analytical understanding of data and presuppositions is essential in order to properly grasp their meaning. Thus, when dealing with how revelation-inspiration has been understood throughout history, we will examine the presuppositions and data on which various positions have been built. This procedure will help us to understand the genesis of theological differences regarding our topic. Moreover, we must not forget to analyze our own presuppositions and data in our pursuit of understanding revelation-inspiration. Consequently, a search and determination of the actual content of presuppositions and data

HOME PAGE WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

will be part of our interpretations. Whether understanding an alreadyformulated doctrine, or attempting a new formulation, we must begin by defining the content of the presuppositions and data, which we will use in our interpretive or creative endeavors.

2. Analysis and Synthesis The English word “analysis” comes from the Greek noun av na,lu sij, which describes the act of breaking something into pieces. It comes from the distributive preposition av n a (“each one, apiece”) and the transitive verb lu ,w (basic meaning: “to loose, to separate into its component parts”). Thus, analysis literally means to break something into pieces and then to examine each piece one at a time. This is exactly what we do when analyzing a notion or doctrine: we take the whole of the idea, break it down into its component pieces, and look at each piece one at a time, inquiring about its meaning and role in the whole. The movement of analysis is completed by its reverse: synthesis. Again, the English word “synthesis” comes from the Greek verb su nti,qhmi, which means “to agree together, to come to a mutual decision within a group.” This verb is a composite of two words— the preposition su ,n (“with”) and the verb ti,qhmi (“to put, place, or lay”). Synthesis literally means “to put together.” It puts back together what has been taken apart by analysis.

3. Content The doctrine of revelation-inspiration is part of human knowledge. As such, its formulation necessarily involves data and presuppositions. As explained above, the data are provided by the fact of revelation-inspiration, or Scripture. Scripture contributes to the data in two main ways: the doctrine and the phenomena of the Bible. But what about the presuppositions involved?–What do we assume when considering revelation-inspiration? At first this questions seems to require an open-ended answer. If presuppositions are determined by a person’s

HOME PAGE 84

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

experience, as I have argued in this chapter, then we have to realize that there are at least as many presuppositions as there are theologians. Seldom do we experience exactly the same thing twice, nor do two different people experience the same event in exactly the same way. If the presuppositions ruling our interpretation of any issue are determined by all our personal experiences, no unified understanding can ever be achieved. Our thinking will be fragmented ad infinitum, threatening the very possibility of meaningful communication and understanding. However, not all presuppositions are of the same kind or play the same role. Let us go back for a moment to the microscope analogy (Figure 6). Students observing the slide under the microscope bring all their experiences with them, yet obviously they do not need to use all of it to understand the slide. Only a few experiences apply. So which presuppositions matter? That is determined by the nature of the object. In the case of the microscope analogy, only knowledge about the characteristics of cell tissue applies. Theological knowledge, strong political feelings on abortion, and other ideas exist among the presuppositions of the cognitive subject, but that person does not use them to identify and describe the slide because they do not apply to the object–the cell tissue in question. Likewise, not all presuppositions are relevant to revelation-inspiration. To decide which of them apply, we must focus on the object of consideration: the origin fo the Bible (see §10 and 11, where we considered the two main agents in the generation of Scripture–God and human beings). Consequently, any analysis of revelation-inspiration assumes a particular view on the nature and actions of God and of human beings, particularly as they relate to the formulation of knowledge. Hence out of the sum total of our past personal experiences, the presuppositions that matter are our beliefs about the natures of God and of man, and how they interacted to produce the Bible. These two prior beliefs are always involved in the analysis, interpretation, and formulation of the doctrine of Scripture’s origin, and play a clear Hermeneutical role in guiding and determining our understanding. Therefore, before analyzing various historical views on revelationinspiration and developing our own, we must consider the concrete

HOME PAGE WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

interpretations of God and human beings always assumed in the various formulations of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration. We will expand this issue in the next chapter.

§26. REVIEW • Two facts that tie the study of revelation-inspiration directly to the question of knowledge. The issue of revelation-inspiration and the process through which we study knowledge are both cognitive in nature; that is, they both happen in the mind. Scripture is comprised of words that represent thoughts, these ideas originate in the cognitive activity of God and that of the sacred writers. Thus, the issues which revelation-inspiration considers are directly related to the broader question of knowledge, because the process of revelation-inspiration is cognitive. • Human cognition can be described as a subject-object relationship. The subject is the human being, while the object is anything that enters the scope of human consciousness. Knowledge takes place when, through the activity of the subject, a connection with the object is established. This description applies to all human knowledge. • How knowledge takes place in the subject-object relationship has been interpreted in three major ways. The classical view maintains that knowledge is determined by the object and passively received by the subject. The modern view believes that knowledge is determined by the activity of the subject, who projects the contents of knowledge into a passive object. The hermeneutical view builds on the strength of the previous two; knowledge is determined by contributions of both the subject and the object. • The subject-object relational structure of knowledge in the analysis of

HOME PAGE 86

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY revelation and inspiration. The structure of knowledge consists in the interaction of presuppositions (contributions of the subject) and data (contributions of the object). Consequently, in order to understand any interpretation of revelationinspiration, we need to be aware of the presuppositions and data operative in the doctrine.

â&#x20AC;˘ Previous understandings of God and human nature are the two main presuppositions determining all interpretations of revelation-inspiration. In any given case of knowledge, the object determines what aspects of our experience are relevant. Revelation-inspiration studies the origin of Scripture as its object. Since God and human beings are the agents involved, how we understand them directly affects our understanding of revelation-inspiration. â&#x20AC;˘ Both our own interpretation of revelation-inspiration and the evaluation of other views require that we became explicitly aware of the presuppositions about God and human nature involved in each case. As we seek to understand the origin of Scripture, we must be aware of the various views of God and human beings that affect how Christian theology has understood revelation and inspiration. Moreover, as we attempt to understand revelation-inspiration based on the sola Scriptura principle, we must be ready, if necessary, to adjust our pre-understanding to what the Bible teaches on these issues.

HOME PAGE

6. THE POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION: NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

Early in the twelfth century, Roman Catholic theologian Anselm of Canterbury wrote that theology is a search for understanding (fides quaerens intellectum).1 Karl Barth, one of the greatest Protestant theologians of all time, came to agree with Anselm’s basic view.2 This study on revelationinspiration is a part of that search. Yet, our search is not to understand the tradition of faith to which we belong by birth or baptism, but the ground on which faith itself becomes possible: the phenomenon of revelationinspiration. Anselm took on the classical view of knowledge and understanding, and Barth did not challenge this view. We, however, are following a different understanding of how knowledge and understanding take place: the hermeneutical view as presented in Chapter 5. As we noted there, the hermeneutical view of human cognition asserts that as we come to know something, two components are interacting— data, and our presuppositions. A hermeneutical analysis, then, will always seek to understand the presuppositions and data involved in any discourse, explanation or theory. In the case of revelation-inspiration, we must examine the process through which the Bible was conceived and written down. As Paul and Peter clarified, two agents were continuously and simultaneously operating in the generation of Scripture (see §18 and 19). Thus, any interpretation of revelation-inspiration must assume previously formed beliefs concerning how God and human beings interrelate.

HOME PAGE 88

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

How we view the relationship between God and humanity, then, is the main hermeneutical presupposition conditioning any understanding of how the Bible came to be. Using hermeneutical analysis, we will attempt to discover how various interpretations of God and human nature have shaped the leading views of revelation and inspiration.

ยง27. THE ISSUE OF NATURE AND SUPERNATURE 1. Introducing the Issue Again, our study requires an unusual detour. On the surface, the concept of nature and supernature seems closer to the doctrine of God than to that of revelation-inspiration because it applies directly. A presupposition of nature and supernature affects the doctrine of revelation-inspiration only indirectly. Nonetheless, that indirect bearing is precisely why we should consider this issue carefully. Before we proceed, I will review some pertinent points we have discussed in previous chapters. Our method, hermeneutical analysis (ยง2.5.c), seeks to understand by uncovering the presuppositions assumed in the meaning of any statement, pronouncement, or teaching. Moreover, we know that both the issue of revelation-inspiration and the study of that issue belong to the area of cognition (ยง22 and 23). A brief exploration of the act of knowledge taught us that both subject and object contribute to the formation of knowledge (ยง24.3). The contributions of the subject (human being) to the formation of knowledge are called presuppositions because they are formed before they are applied to a particular object. Our study of revelation-inspiration necessarily involves our presuppositions. How can we know which presuppositions are at work in the conception and formulation of our doctrine of revelation-inspiration? By questioning its subject matter. Since Peter has made clear that the event of revelation-inspiration always engages two agents, God and the human writer (ยง19.7-8), our ideas about divine and human nature directly shape our position on revelation-inspiration. Moreover, our understanding of God and human beings depends on the type

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

of reality to which they belong: God to the realm of supernature, human beings to that of nature. As we become aware of various interpretations of nature and supernature, we learn the hermeneutical reasons for the interpretation of the nature of God. Awareness of conceptualizations of nature helps us to understand how human nature has been interpreted. As we come to understand God and human beings and how their natures act and interact, we secure for ourselves the hermeneutical tool that unlocks for us the complex world of theological interpretations of revelation-inspiration.

2. Purpose. In this chapter, I will attempt to summarize the ideas involved in understanding God and humanity. More importantly, we will examine the role of those ideas as hermeneutical presuppositions affecting our interpretation of revelation-inspiration. Our purpose in this chapter is modest: we will explore nature and supernatureâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;the arena from which we form our ideas about human and divine nature, respectively. We will outline how both Christian theology and Scripture interpret nature and supernature. Then, we will discuss the hermeneutical consequences of interpreting revelation-inspiration by following either the classical or biblical views on nature and supernature. Uncovering the significance of presuppositions for interpreting revelationinspiration may help you to better understand the hermeneutical role that these ideas play. After describing various approaches to the relationship between nature and supernature, we will apply those approaches as presuppositions in the analysis of various models of revelation-inspiration. From there, we will continue in our own search for a new model. The importance of this step cannot be overstated. How we understand these ideas will determine our interpretation of, first, whether revelation-inspiration is possible; second, our understanding of the process that generated Scripture; and, finally, our interpretation of Scripture.

3. Organization.

HOME PAGE 90

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

This chapter will be organized into three major sections. Each section will cover one interpretation of nature and supernature and its consequences for revelation-inspiration. The interpretations to be considered are the classical, the modern, and the biblical. The classical view believes that the realms of nature and supernature are discontinuous. The modern view proposes that nature and supernature are absolutely discontinuous. The biblical model, however, assumes that nature and supernature are not discontinuous but work within a pattern of integrated historical continuity.

§28. THE ISSUE What do theologians mean when they speak of nature and supernature? By the word “nature”theologians and philosophers mean the realm where everything we know exists. It includes the world and everything embraced within the general term “universe.” Biblically speaking, what philosophers call nature is described as God’s creation. Everything within the category of creation by definition belongs to the realm of nature. In contrast, supernature is that which goes beyond nature: the realm of the divine. Thus, only God exists within supernature. Traditionally, the domain of the supernatural has been described as “heaven,” while the natural has been called “earth.” On the surface, things appear simple enough. Heaven is heaven and earth is earth. But what kind of reality is a heavenly or supernatural reality, and what kind of reality is an earthly or natural one? The answer to these questions directly conditions how one believes these two realities relate to each other. Christian theology provides us with three views of nature and supernature and the relationship between them.

§29. THE CLASSICAL VIEW Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are two notable and influential representatives of the classical view. They not only express it in their writings, but they assume it in developing their theological views. Their

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

influence is still very much alive in the twenty-first century.

1. Plato’s Two-World Theory The classical concept of nature and supernature was drawn from the views of Greek philosophy, specifically Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s view of nature and supernature is encapsulated in his reflections on the to,pu j ou v ranou , or “heavenly place.” Plato was deeply influenced by Greek religion and mythology. The idea of a place where the gods lived was familiar to his followers and students. Plato, however, constructed his own view of what heaven is as a part of his interpretation of reality. That interpretation is conveyed by the technical word “ontology,” derived from the Greek words o,ntoj (“of the being or thing”) and lo,goj (“word” or “study”). Thus, “ontology” is the study of being or reality. Plato’s view on reality roughly corresponds to what we call “worldview” or “cosmology.” In Plato’s mind, reality must be eternal. In other words, we cannot conceive of ultimate reality as coming to be or passing away. Plato probably borrowed this idea of reality from Parmenides, who argued that being was timeless and eternal. The problem with Parmenides’s speculative notion about a timeless reality is that it does not tell us much. We do not experience timeless reality; instead, we understand only transient, historical realities. Parmenides did not solve the problem. Plato ventured his solution by way of his to,pu j ou ranou / theory. He decided that reality as a whole is made up of two tiers or worlds, one heavenly and the other earthly. Realities in the heavenly world are uncreated, and therefore timeless and eternal, whereas realities in the earthly world are created, and therefore temporal and transient. The relationship between the heavenly and earthly tiers is one of duplication. Plato developed his interpretation of creation and reality in great detail; however, we are only interested here in how his thinking influenced subsequent theologies of nature and supernature.

2. Plato’s Influence on Classical Christian Theology

HOME PAGE 92

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Through a process that took several centuries, Plato’s two-worlds theory came to shape how Christian theology understood nature and supernature. The two-worlds interpretation influenced not only Christianity, but also Judaism. Jewish theologian Philo of Alexandria adopted this view and used it as a hermeneutical tool to interpret the Old Testament and to develop his own teachings. By the time of Augustine, Christian theology had claimed for itself the basic outline of Plato’s cosmology. Christianity’s Old Testament roots also speak of heaven and earth. God speaks and acts from heaven, while we as creatures belong to earth. Since Scripture was not readily available to most believers for centuries, it was unusual for early converts to Christianity to be trained in philosophy and thus able to extrapolate Plato’s view into Christian thinking. A few generations later, however, some of his ideas became a part of the Christian tradition. It should be noted that classical Christianity did not become completely Platonized. What took place was the appropriation of some select ideas. Plato’s notion of nature and supernature was one area of thought that was adopted into Christianity.

3. Nature and Supernature: Discontinuity Under the influence of Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophies, Christianity came to conceive of heaven as timeless. Plato’s two-worlds theory was adapted to biblical teachings on God and human beings. By the time of Augustine, God was conceived of as the higher and perfect personification of timeless reality. In contrast, earth was thought of as the temporal, historical, and transient realm of reality. This understanding of reality involves a notorious discontinuity between the timeless realm of supernature and the temporal realm of nature. Because of this interpretation, a real gap was interposed between God and human beings. In technical terms, this gap was ontological3 because it resulted from the opposite characteristics of the very being of God and of creation. But, of what does the gap between the supernatural (timeless) and natural (temporal) realms consist? To answer this question, we need to understand the technical meaning of the word “timelessness.”

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

4. Timelessness When we use the notion of “timelessness”in everyday language, we refer to something that endures within time as opposed to something that is transient and passes away. For instance, when we say that a piece of art is “timeless,” we mean to say that a sculpture, portrait, or musical score has a permanent value unaffected by the passage of time and successive changes in human culture. The technical meaning of timelessness is quite removed from our daily experience. When philosophers and theologians say that something is “timeless” in this sense they mean to say that something remains in a level of existence where there is neither time nor space.4 Hence, the negative particle “less”is added to the otherwise positive term “time.” Timelessness is the absence of time and space.5 A timeless reality does not experience the flow from past to present and future, and therefore never changes or experiences anything new. As we consider revelation-inspiration, we will use the term “timelessness” in its technical sense. You should commit the technical meaning to memory to avoid confusing it with its everyday sense. To apply this concept to God does make sense. To say that God is timeless explains, for instance, his eternity. Why is God eternal? A classical theologian might say, “God is eternal because, being timeless, he is totally outside the realm of transience and passing away. God, consequently, always is; he never ceases to exist.” One cannot help but be impressed by the clarity and rationality of the classical explanation of God’s eternity. Is the classical explanation in harmony with Scripture? Doesn’t the Bible say that God is eternal? Yes, it does (see, i.e., Deuteronomy 33:27; Isaiah 43:13; and 1 Timothy 1:17). However, Scripture does not present God’s eternity in a timeless way. We will come back to this issue later in the chapter.

5. The Analogy of Being: Discontinuity is Not Absolute We must now consider the gap between nature and supernature when nature

HOME PAGE 94

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

is understood temporally and supernature timelessly. From early times, philosophers followed the axiom that “the like know the like.” In other words, a basic similarity between the cognitive subject and a particular object is a necessary precondition of knowledge. Between timeless and temporal realities— completely different in being— there can be no point of contact. They are so different that there is no way in which realities existing in these two worlds may communicate. The gap between timeless supernature and temporal nature appears absolute. The gap, however, is bridgeable thanks to a concept called the “analogy of being” put forth by the classical view. “Analogy of being” essentially means “similitude of reality.” Philosophically, the analogy of being is the idea that all reality is similar in that it is all ultimately timeless. In other words, all of reality, even temporal reality, somehow shares in timelessness. This means that only God is totally and perfectly timeless. Created realities are composite, combining timeless and temporal components. The soul (timeless)-body (temporal) conceptualization of human nature is a clear example of how the analogy of being applies to concrete, everyday realities.

6. Consequences for Revelation-Inspiration Revelation-inspiration is possible because a timeless God can communicate with the timeless soul of a human being: “the like know the like.” The analogy between these two levels of reality allows them to communicate directly. However, revelation-inspiration can occur only within the area of similarity: timelessness. Revelation-inspiration, then, must be thought of as a timeless, intellectual phenomenon; the temporal, historical aspects of Scripture are therefore irrelevant. Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the divine action of revelationinspiration when the classical interpretation of nature and supernature is assumed. The realms of supernature (timeless heaven) and nature (temporal earth) are depicted as separate by way of a sort of “H” that resembles the goal posts in a football game.

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

Figure 1: Classical View of Nature and Supernature The upper compartment in the “H” of Figure 1 corresponds to supernature. God’s timeless being belongs to and determines the nature of the supernatural realm. The lower compartment in the “H” of Figure 1 corresponds to nature, encompassing all created beings. Because human beings are temporal , they belong to the realm of nature. However, due to the analogy of being, temporal realities also share in timelessness. Specifically, human beings are thought of as a composite of body and soul. God can communicate with them through their timeless souls, in spite of the gap between timeless supernature and temporal nature. More precisely, the timeless nature of the human soul and its intellectual faculty allow God to communicate to it through revelation and inspiration. This view requires that God’s cognitive communication can only take place within the realm of timelessness. As we will see in the next chapter, the belief that revelation takes place within a timeless, intellectual zone has shaped the classical model of revelation-inspiration.

§30. THE MODERN VIEW The modern view is a reinterpretation of the classical understanding. Immanuel Kant, a noted German philosopher, reviewed Plato’s two-worlds theory and constructed another way to think of nature and supernature.

HOME PAGE 96

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Kant is a representative of the Enlightenment and a forger of modern and postmodern times. He was not preoccupied with interpreting reality, but with evaluating how we know what we say we know. Kant specialized in the study of knowledge. In his work he influenced the traditional view of revelation-inspiration not only by reinterpreting its presuppositions of nature and supernature, but also through a reinterpretation of what knowledge is. The reader should bear in mind that as a result of an intricate process of historical development, the ideas I will be abridging are very complex and involved.

1. Kant’s Historical Continuum Classical theologians believed knowledge took place within the timeless zone of human intellect. In contrast, the modern view proposed that human knowledge takes place within time. In a sense, one can say that with the Enlightenment thinking became aware of its own historicity. Obviously, these two positions conflict. But how does Kant’s temporal interpretation of human knowledge work when applied to revelation-inspiration? According to the classical view, human knowledge was capable of knowing timeless objects. Human intellect was the main characteristic of the timeless, human soul. So, a cognitive interchange between God and human beings (revelation-inspiration) and between human beings and God (natural theology) was deemed possible. In contrast Kant argued that human knowledge is possible only within the limits of space and time. To him, human knowledge was not able to reach timeless objects. In other words, no aspect of human knowledge could be attributed to a supernatural cause. Nature and time were a continuum closed to any outside influence. Consequently, no event could have a timeless, supernatural cause.

2. Nature and Supernature: Absolute Discontinuity Kant’s closed historical continuum does not deny the existence of a realm beyond itself. Broadly speaking, modern thought rejects neither the existence of supernature nor the classical interpretation of it. However, there is an enormous difference. While the supernatural realm (heaven) continues to be timeless, the

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

natural realm (earth) has become entirely temporal. The analogy of being has disappeared. The gap between nature and supernature has become unbridgeable, and the discontinuity between nature and supernature has become absolute. God becomes “Wholly Other”than every created thing. Since he belongs to the realm of supernature, He is absolutely different from anything we as temporal beings know or may ever come to know. As there is no contact between nature and supernature, human knowledge is possible only within the limits of space and time (nature). The modern interpretation of nature and supernature has farreaching consequences. It has completely reshaped ideas of religion and theology – including revelation-inspiration.

3. Consequences for Revelation-Inspiration According to the old philosophical maxim, “the like know the like,” some similarity is necessary for two entities to have a relationship of cause or knowledge. To put it simply, for communication to take place both parties must tune their radio transmitters to the same wave frequency. Therefore, if God is to communicate successfully to humans, both he and they must operate within the same frequency of reality. The sameness assumed in the process of communication is technically termed the “analogy of being.” Since the modern view of nature denies any relationship or connection with supernature, it consequently denies any analogy between them. If the condition for communication between God and human persons is thus gone, can one still speak of revelation-inspiration as divine activity resulting in Scripture, as Paul and Peter have stated? The answer seems to be, “No.” The modern interpretation of nature and supernature – absolute discontinuity – makes revelation-inspiration impossible. Figure 2 graphically represents the consequences that the modern interpretation of nature and supernature brings to the issue of revelationinspiration. Again, I use an “H” to depict the realms of nature and supernature, but this time the unbridgeable gap between timeless supernature and temporal nature is presented as a thicker, darker line. God is again placed in the supernatural realm, and humans in nature. Two arrows, one in

HOME PAGE 98

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

each world, symbolize the attempts of God and human beings to communicate with each other. Both arrows stop at the line dividing nature

Figure 2: Modern View of Nature and Supernature and supernature. Due to the fact that an absolute, unbridgeable gap lies between them, neither can reach the other side. Because human knowledge cannot reach God in this view, natural theology cannot exist. Since God cannot reach temporal reality, the idea of a personal God acting in history becomes impossible. Specifically, a personal God who reveals his ideas, will, and plans to human beings cannot exist if the modern view of nature and supernature is accepted.

ยง31. THE BIBLICAL VIEW Scripture does not address the supernature-nature issue in such a technical, philosophical manner. It is important to recognize that Christian theology has become rigidly attached to the notion that theology must build on philosophical foundations. Consequently, one will probably not find too many Christian theologians attempting to work within biblical descriptions of nature and supernature. On the contrary, their dependance on philosophical principles

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

explains why they often choose the classical or modern views on supernaturenature. The search for the biblical notion of nature and supernature requires a reversal of this methodological tradition. But is there a biblical view of nature and supernature? The evidence appears to be mixed. Biblical literature abounds in references to heaven and earth. Consequently, we can reasonably assume that, implicitly or explicitly, Scripture subscribes to a definite idea of nature and supernature. In contrast, a review of Christian theology suggests that even if there is a biblical view on nature and supernature, it has become inoperative, because philosophy has been chosen to provide the intellectual foundations for theological discourse. Therefore, aside from tradition, we have no plausible reason for not exploring and using the biblical idea in place of the prevalent Platonic and Kantian interpretations. How does the Bible conceive of nature and supernature?

1. Ground Statements Scripture does not explicitly address the relationship between nature and supernature. If we are to understand how the Bible views the two, we must analyze biblical statements about God (supernature) in relationship to the world (nature). In this way, we will gain insight into how biblical writers implicitly understood nature and supernature. An exhaustive list of all the biblical statements is impossible and unnecessary. We need only to identify the basic scriptural view, particularly in comparison with the classical and modern views of nature and supernature. As we have explored, these two views agree in understanding supernature as timeless, but disagree on how supernature relates to nature. The classical view allows supernature to relate to the world only within the timeless aspects of created reality (analogy of being), while the closed historical continuum adopted by the modern position allows for no divine activity in nature or history. What about Scripture? Does the Bible conceive of God as timeless? Or does Scripture, in contrast to the classical and modern positions, make room for Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s personal and historical actions within nature? By looking briefly at two biblical passages where God is said to relate to the world, we may be able to ascertain the biblical concept of nature and supernature. The first passage speaks about Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presence in the Old Testament sanctuary; the

HOME PAGE 100

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

second, about God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ. a. The Old Testament Sanctuary After calling his people out of Egypt, God revealed himself to Israel on Mount Sinai. There Yahweh gave the Decalogue to the people (Exodus 20:1-24:2) and entered into a solemn covenant with them (Exodus 24:311). God then called Moses to come up the mountain (Exodus 24:12-18), where he revealed an astonishing plan to live among them: “Let them construct a sanctuary for me, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8). The English word “dwell” accurately translates the Hebrew term !kv. Most of what follows in the book of Exodus concerns God’s plan to dwell with His people. At the end of the book, Moses is told to erect the tabernacle. When the work is finished, God’s plan becomes reality when “the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Exodus 40:34-35). What does this tell us about nature and supernature in the biblical view? According to the classical and modern views, what happens in this text is not possible; God cannot dwell within space and time. Proponents of these views would simply say that because of his timelessness God cannot actually undergo spacial-temporal experiences. He cannot dwell in a house built by human beings as Exodus 25:8 suggests. A Platonic hermeneutic would force this text to be interpreted in a metaphorical sense. But to assume such a method of interpretation is speculative, denying the text its own implicit concept of supernature. Fortunately there are no biblical, logical, or philosophical reasons forcing us into the timeless notion of supernature. On the contrary, faithfulness to Scripture requires that we seriously consider a different idea of supernature. Exodus 25:8 describes God undergoing the temporal-spacial experience of dwelling in a sanctuary among human beings. We are not interested in the theological teaching or repercussions of this text, but its implicit concept of

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

101

supernature. When we suspend the application of an extrabiblical, Platonic view of supernature in favor of Scripture’s implicit understanding, we discover that Exodus 25:8 presupposes a temporal-historical supernature. According to this text, God actually dwells in the house prepared for Him, directly experiencing the spacial-temporal reality of nature in all its immediacy and concreteness. This picture of God’s activity implicitly assumes that the supernatural realm is fully compatible with the temporality and historicity of the natural realm. b. The Incarnation of God The New Testament gives witness to the astonishing fact of God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ. The term “incarnation” is not found in Scripture, but it accurately describes how the Son of God became flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Using words reminiscent of Exodus 25:8, the apostle John writes, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The eternal and divine Word belongs to the realm of supernature (John 1:1-2, 18). The flesh belongs to the realm of nature. But somehow, the eternal Word became flesh and dwelt among human beings. The idea that God can dwell among humans is clear from Old Testament teaching about God’s sanctuary. Likewise, the idea of incarnation implies even greater compatibility and harmonious integration between nature and supernature. This is demonstrated by the usage of terms such as “being” and “becoming” in the original Greek as well as in English. Being means “to have reality or actuality.” Becoming signifies “to come into existence or being.”In the incarnation, the divine, eternal, and preexistent Word underwent a process of coming into existence or being as flesh – a human being with a physical conception and birth. If the incarnation requires an inner divine process that ends in the natural realm, we must conclude that this action of God is based on a temporal-historical understanding of supernature. Do the classical and modern views of nature and supernature allow for the Johannine description of incarnation? Again, the answer is, “No.”If God and the supernatural realm are timeless, a change in the divine nature of the Word from non-incarnate to incarnate is impossible. This movement, implicit in the biblical

HOME PAGE 102

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

idea of becoming, can take place only on the assumption that the supernatural realm is compatible with the realm of nature. The incarnation requires a temporal-historical understanding of supernature and, hence, a harmonious integration between nature and supernature.

2. Integrated Historical Continuum Scripture’s teaching about heaven and earth assumes a specific view of nature and supernature. From our examination of these two texts, we have discovered that Scripture does not adhere to the classical and modern interpretations. In far contrast, Scripture assumes an understanding diametrically opposed to these views, which agrees with the classical and modern theories on the idea of nature, yet strongly disagrees on supernature. Specifically, their view of supernature as timeless is replaced in biblical thinking by a temporal-historical view. In the Bible, nature is a finite realm of creation limited by spatiality and temporality. Supernature is the realm that properly belongs to God alone. Scripture assumes that God is an infinite, eternal and yet temporalhistorical being. From this idea, we should not assume that the gap between nature and supernature has totally disappeared; the two realms have not become one. Elsewhere throughout Scripture it is clear that God’s own temporal historicity is decidedly different from humans’limited participation in it. For instance, Scripture affirms that God does not possess time or experience history in the same way we do (2 Peter 3:8). We have a limited understanding of what time and historical life are, but God possesses life in Himself and therefore experiences time and history in an infinite manner totally removed from what creatures can understand. We cannot experience the depths of God’s life or the fullness of time as He does. The lesser is not capable of the greater. Consequently, as in Scripture, nature and supernature are markedly different in a way better expressed in terms of Creator-creature than in terms of timelessnesstime. The biblical affirmation that nature and supernature are both temporal-

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

103

historical forces a momentous reinterpretation of the analogy of being. Analogy is again possible because in the Bible, the two conditions for it, sameness and difference, are obvious. Sameness is present because nature and supernature are temporal-historical. Difference is likewise present. But unlike the classical view, in which the analogy of being occurs within a timeless eternity, the biblical view sees the analogy of being as occurring in time and history. In the Bible, the relationship between nature and supernature takes the form of a historically integrated continuum that is created, sustained, and governed by God. This continuum is assumed throughout Scripture. Though it recognizes the differences between the two realms, their temporal sameness allows nature and supernature to interrelate directly within time and history. The closed historical continuum of modernity and postmodernity is thus opened to Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience of and action in history. The biblical concept of nature and supernature is a necessary presupposition for understanding biblical teachings such as the sanctuary and the incarnation. Since nature and supernature are integrated in a historical continuum, there is no ontological contradiction between believing God experiences life in the fullness of time in eternity and believing He is able to experience life at the limited level of his creatures. By distinguishing between the supernatural and natural realms, Scripture prevents any pantheistic or panentheistic attempts to merge the two into one. Nature cannot experience life or time as God does. The higher reality can experience the lower reality, but not the lower the higher.

3. Consequences for Revelation-Inspiration The relationship between nature and supernature in the Bible impacts all Christian theology, especially revelation-inspiration. According to Scripture, sin and not timelessness explains the absence of God. Since God acts within history, the cognitive processes resulting in the Bible â&#x20AC;&#x201C; revelation-inspiration â&#x20AC;&#x201C; must be interpreted historically, not timelessly. a. The Absence of God

HOME PAGE 104

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

There is an obvious gap between God and the world. We perceive this gap by the absence of God’s historical presence. Believers claim there is a God, yet, He does not make Himself obvious to us here in space and time. In this sense, we experience the “absence of God.” Classical and modern interpretations of nature and supernature explain this universal experience as an inevitable consequence of God’s timelessness. God’s nature precludes us from experiencing His presence in space and time. This explanation is quite reasonable. A timeless God by definition cannot make Himself present within time. In contrast, Scripture explains the absence of God with the concept of sin: “But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear” (Isaiah 59:2). In this passage, Isaiah explains that God does not directly communicate with human beings because of their sinful state, not because their temporality precludes Him from doing so. Once sin is somehow removed, God can directly relate to human beings regardless of their temporality. This leads to the second consequence— the realization that God acts historically in history. b. The Acts of God To say that God acts historically in history seems awkward and redundant. Let me explain the expression. The classical and modern views of nature and supernature are forced to provide an explanation of God’s relationship to nature. After all, if God does not relate to nature somehow, the essence of Christianity is forfeited. Consequently, classical and modern views of Christian theology speak of “God’s acts in history” and “his historical acts.” On the surface, these statements seem to say that God acts in human nature, that is, within the realm of creation and time. However, these phrases have become theological jargon for a very specific mode of divine action in the natural realm, action which does not take place within the flux of time. From outside the flow of history, God’s historical act is the intersection of

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

105

his timeless activity (which is always the same) with time. The intersection between nature and supernature becomes God’s historical action. Theologians say that this intersection does not take place within the flux of time, but in the “instant.” We will come back to this idea later.6 Figure 3 graphically represents the biblical view of nature and supernature along with its consequences for revelation-inspiration. The “H” we have been using to depict the separation of nature and supernature does not have a black bar for the dividing gap between them. However, I have shaded each realm with a different pattern to indicate that, in spite of the absence of a separating gap, nature and supernature remain distinctly different. The absence of a gap indicates that the two realms are not of opposite natures as in the classical and modern views. Instead, both share the same general characteristics of time, history, and life. The heavenly and earthly realms experience this commonality each according to the specificity of its respective reality. The Creator experiences the sequence

Figure 3: Biblical View of Nature and Supernature of time and history in the eternity of His infinite being, while creatures experience time and history in a finite and limited manner. The horizontal arrows indicate the historicity of God’s activity from within eternal time in supernature and in the limited, created time of nature. The vertical arrow indicates that God can act in human history from within the flow of created time, but also from within his own uncreated, eternal time. c. The Nature of Knowledge

HOME PAGE 106

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

The third consequence of applying the biblical notion of nature and supernature is the effect on the relationship between the process of knowledge and revelation-inspiration. In §21 and §22, we discussed the cognitive nature of the question and doctrine of revelation-inspiration. We acknowledged that our presuppositions directly influence our interpretation of Scripture. Our present discussion of nature and supernature is a result of realizing the role presuppositions play in understanding. The same philosophical ideas that played substantive roles in the classical and modern views of nature and supernature play similar ones in interpreting the origin and nature of human knowledge. Those who assume the classical view of nature and supernature are likely to adopt the classical view of knowledge, while those assuming the modern understanding of nature and supernature are likely to adopt the modern view of knowledge (cf. §24.1-2). The classical model understands knowledge as timeless. The objects we know and the process through which we know them takes place within the timeless realm of supernature. Historical thinking is reduced to the level of opinions and biases that thus needs to be avoided. The only thought process which is objective (the goal of science) is one that is capable of eliminating all historicity (cf. §24.1). The modern interpretation of knowledge still depends on viewing nature and supernature as temporal and timeless, respectively. Yet, it calls on time and history to play a higher role than they are allowed to play in the classical view. Although post-Kantian modernity tended to view reality more historically, knowledge was still interpreted as timeless . The tendency in favor of history, then, did not challenge the classical view of nature and supernature, but because of the new historical emphasis, the classical view needed serious reexamination. In his Being and Time, German philosopher Martin Heidegger took on the task of deconstructing the classical and modern philosophical foundations of nature and supernature. In his Truth and Method, Gadamer, Heidegger’s student, undertook the work of interpreting human understanding as historical process. His work emphasized how our historical experiences form our

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

107

presuppositions in the process of understanding. Gadamer’s work gave birth to historicist hermeneutics, an interpretation of human understanding based on the assumption that knowledge takes place within the historical flux of time. Since Scripture understands nature and supernature from an analogical view of time and history, some of Gadamer’s insights into the historical nature of human understanding will be helpful in our study of revelation-inspiration.

§32. REVIEW • Presuppositions of nature and supernature are necessarily involved in the study of revelation-inspiration. To study revelation-inspiration hermeneutically, we must secure an analysis of the presuppositions involved. Two agents are involved in the process of revelation-inspiration: God and humans. Supernature is the realm of reality to which God belongs, while nature is where created human beings find their place. Thus, preconceptions of nature and supernature always determine our beliefs about God and human beings. These ideas regulate our understanding of revelation-inspiration. • The Classical View: Analogical Discontinuity Supernature is timeless, while nature is a composite of timelessness and time. The timelessness present in nature provides the basis for connecting nature and supernature. All connections between them, including the cognitive activities essential to revelation-inspiration, must take place within the timeless level of existence. • The Modern View: Absolute Discontinuity Supernature is timeless, while nature is temporal and historical. However, while the existence of a timeless soul within humanity is recognized, that soul cannot know temporal things. Knowledge is totally limited to the temporalhistorical realm of nature. This view does not exclude the possibility of all contact between nature and supernature, because of the acceptance of a

HOME PAGE 108

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

timeless soul. Nevertheless, cognitive contact between nature and supernature is impossible. An absolute cognitive discontinuity exists between nature and supernature. • The Modern View: Closed Historical Continuum If supernature is timeless and nature is temporal as the classical and modern views maintain, God cannot act historically in history. The gap between timelessness and temporality is absolute. Beings that belong to one realm cannot cross over to the other. Thus, the sequence of cause and effect within the flow of time cannot be modified by a timeless cause. A supernatural, timeless being, then, cannot act in time and history at the level of temporal causes. • The Biblical View: Integrated Historical Continuum Nature and supernature are temporal and historical, but beings from each realm experience time and history in different ways. In other words, God and creatures experience time differently according to the nature of their beings. God, as the infinite Creator, experiences time and history in their fullness, whereas finite, limited creatures like human beings experience time in a finite, limited manner. Divine and human experiences are similar in that both relate to the same temporal-historical reality. Nature and supernature, then, are integrated realms of reality. God is able to experience the lower level of nature directly because the greater is always capable of experiencing the lesser. Human beings, however, cannot experience God’s awareness of time and history because the lesser is never able to assimilate the view of that which surpasses it. • Consequences of the classical view: revelation-inspiration is possible, but takes place in a timeless environment. The absence of God is explained by the difference between nature and supernature: humans are bound by time, but God is timeless. The analogy (similarities) between supernatural and natural timelessness, however,

HOME PAGE NATURE AND SUPERNATURE

109

makes cognitive contact between God and a human writer possible. Since God and the human being can communicate only within a timeless zone, any doctrine of revelation-inspiration based on this view must assume a timeless cognitive process. God can act in time, but not within the causeeffect flux of history. God’s acts can only take place within timeless reality. • Consequences of the modern view: revelation-inspiration as a cognitive event is impossible. Since God’s absence is explained by virtue of his timelessness, no analogy between nature and supernature is acceptable. Any cognitive contact between a timeless God and a temporal prophet becomes impossible. Moreover, the historical level becomes closed to the intervention of any timeless cause. Nature becomes a closed historical continuum. • Consequences of the biblical view: revelation-inspiration is possible and takes place within a temporal-historical environment. The absence of God is explained as a direct consequence of sin. Due to the analogy between nature and supernature within the integrated historical continuum of reality, revelation-inspiration becomes possible. God is able to act and communicate cognitively with a human being living at the historical level of reality.

ENDNOTES 1

“I long to understand in some degree thy truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe,— that unless I believed, I should not understand” (Anselm, Proslogium, 1). 2

Cf. Karl Barth, Anselm: “Fides quaerens intellectum” Anselm’s Proof of the Existence of God in the Context of His Theological Scheme, trans. Ian W.

HOME PAGE 110

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Robertson, 2d ed. (London: SCM Press, 1960), 12A-12B. Derived from the Greek o,ntoj (“being”) and lo,goj (“word, study”), ontology is the philosophical discipline that studies the broad characteristics of reality. 3

Augustine understood God’s being as timeless. He did not develop it technically, but his writings clearly show his leaning when addressed to God’s being and works. For instance, he writes, “At no time, therefore, did you [God] do nothing, since you had made time itself. No times are coeternal with you, because you are permanent, whereas if they were permanent, they would not be times” (Confessions 11, 14, 17). Thomas Aquinas describes the meaning of timelessness as he uses it to portray God’s eternity: “Those beings alone are measured by time that are moved. For time, as is made clear in Physics IV, is ‘the number of motion.’But God, as has been proved, is absolutely without motion, and is consequently not measured by time. There is, therefore, no before and after in Him: He does not have being after non-being, not non-being after being, nor can any succession be found in His being. For none of these characteristics can be understood without time. God, therefore, is without beginning and end, having His whole being at once. In this consists the nature of eternity” (Summa Contra Gentiles, 1.15.3). 5

Space and time are an integrated continuum. Kant argued that we can think of time without space, but not vice versa. To deny time also implies the negation of space (cf. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn [Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1990]). 6

The reason for my awkward addition of the adverb “historically” to the technical phrase “God acts in history”is to specify how the action takes place. Traditionally, the technical phrase “God acts in history” has been used in contexts that assume God’s activity to originate in timelessness. I use the more awkward wording to alert the reader that I intend a different association. The adverb expresses the mode in which God’s activity takes place. When we understand that mode as historical, we follow Scripture in assuming that God, from inside the flow of history, can act, relate, and communicate directly with humanity.

HOME PAGE

SECTION TWO MODELS OF INTERPRETATION Theologians have considered the question of Scripture’s origin almost from the beginning of Christian history, coming up with many different views. If we are to understand revelation-inspiration today, we must do so within the context of these ideas, all of which are still operative within the theological community today. How should we tackle our study in light of two millennia’s worth of theological consideration? In this book, we will use a method based on the idea of a theological “model,” looking for the basic traits common to various interpretations. We will begin with the hermeneutical presuppositions of each historical model we examine. We will soon see that at the level of presuppositions, we have only a few significant variants to consider; in other words, the presence or absence of one or two simple ideas in a theologian’s mind can give rise to vastly different models. We will not need to summarize all available interpretations; our use of model methodology will give us an overview of all the basic interpretations that have emerged over the centuries. In Chapter 7, we will explore the idea of a theological model as a way of understanding revelation-inspiration. Chapters 8, 9 and 10 will each present one of the three most significant models— the classical, modern, and evangelical respectively.

HOME PAGE

7. MODELS AS TOOLS FOR UNDERSTANDING

It is important to consider how revelation-inspiration has been understood throughout Christian history. As we examine the various interpretations, we move from methodology to historical theology. With the completion of Section 1 we have finished the groundwork for analysis, but we are not yet ready to attempt a systematic understanding of revelation-inspiration, which will be our aim in Section 3. First we must examine how Scripture’s origin has been understood previously, so we will survey the historical landscape. This will help us understand the current theological and ecclesiological situation. Why are there so many versions of Christian theology? Why are there so many churches? Our purpose is not to answer these questions per se. But as we enter historical (Section 2) and systematic (Section 3) analyses of revelation-inspiration, be aware of how ideas about revelation-inspiration affect the thoughts and actions of all Christians. If we survey the catalog of specialized studies on the Bible’s origin, we learn two things. First, Christian literature categorizes this topic under the broad heading “inspiration.” I have chosen to use the more cumbersome label “revelation-inspiration” to indicate the complexity of the process we are examining.

HOME PAGE 114

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Second, there are a variety of conflicting interpretations of revelationinspiration. Such discrepancies lead to the question of methodology. What procedure should we use to classify and describe the various interpretations? My proposal is to use the “model” method because of how it organizes and describes theological ideas; it harmonizes with the hermeneutical approach we will be using as we survey how revelation-inspiration has been understood historically. This chapter will explain the idea of the model as a tool for theological analysis. First we will explore what we mean by the word model and how it functions as such a tool. Then we will consider the issue of classification and the hermeneutical perspective from which we are classifying the models of revelation-inspiration in this book.

§33. EXPLORING THE CONCEPT OF MODEL The English word model generally means “structural design” or “pattern to be made,” two ideas that correspond well to the idea of model as a method of analysis. They suggest something like a blueprint for a house or a car. A model does not describe specific details, but provides a theoretical framework to shape the reality to which it applies. For example, the blueprint for a house does not apply to any particular house, but to houses built from its plans. In my neighborhood are several houses which follow the same general plan, or model, of my own home. But all houses are unique; while they follow the same blueprints, those plans are applied slightly differently for each house. From this we learn several characteristics of models. A model is ideal, broad, and applicable to reality. It is ideal because no specific reality matches it exactly, but every reality following the model attempts to follow its pattern. It is broad because not every detail is included in the blueprint. Only the main, decisive features are present. Models are patterns used to build concrete realities. As the construction of the reality takes place, that reality may differ from the model. So how does the concept of model relate to theological methodology?

HOME PAGE MODELS AS TOOLS FOR UNDERSTANDING

115

1. Models In Theology Models are blueprints or patterns that guide action. When a contractor builds a new home, blueprints guide the entire process of construction. After the house is built, the importance of the blueprint remains, for eventually, the house will need repair or remodeling. If we want to remodel a house but have lost the blueprints, what can we do? If all else fails, we could reconstruct the blueprints from the actual layout of the existing house. Something similar happens in theology. As with a house’s building plan, theological blueprints are involved in constructive and reconstructive activities. When a theologian develops his interpretations and teachings, he follows general patterns for theological construction. These patterns or models form a part of his presuppositions (cf. §24). Most of the time theologians do not explicitly express the blueprint from which they are working. Then we are forced to reconstruct the blueprint from the actual layout of their work. In the study of revelation-inspiration, most theologians do not explicitly formulate their blueprints for theological constructions. Our task in Section 2, then, is to discover the overall plans from which theologians generally work— to find the implicit plan we call “model.” American theologian David Tracy has used the model methodology in some of his books with remarkable success and ability. He is not only convinced of its effectiveness, but assures us that it is a widely accepted procedure among theologians.1 In theology, the essence of models— that which makes them worthwhile— is showing the main components and structure of any given doctrine.2 Thus, as tools, models help identify the general characteristics of any theological position, school, or trend. We will use this methodology to analyze and summarize the major approaches to revelation-inspiration.

2. Models and Presuppositions Models in this study refer to the blueprints for understanding a given doctrine or teaching. Thus, we may talk about models of the church, atonement, salvation,

HOME PAGE 116

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

or revelation-inspiration. These models, in turn, depend on broader beliefs common to the formulation of all doctrines and teachings. As we noted earlier, all our experiences play a presuppositional role, yet only a few apply in the formulation of any given doctrine (see §25.3). There are two types of presuppositions which determine the interpretation and formulation of all Christian doctrines, including revelation-inspiration: hermeneutical principles (also known as “axioms”) and methodological paradigms.3 Our discussion of supernature and nature is a clear example of hermeneutical principle (see §28-31), while the method one chooses to apply in exegetical studies is an example of what falls under the designation of “paradigm.”

3. Limitations Models have their limits; they are not exact, all-inclusive, or provable. A model is not exact because it never describes perfectly the position of any specific theologian whose ideas follow it. In other words, each theologian may have ideas that do not fit within the overall description of the model, even in the case of a particular theologian who may be the best representative of a given model.4 A model is not all-inclusive because at times theologians do not follow any specific model, but work by mixing together components of several different models. Therefore, some theologians are very difficult to classify.5 A model is not provable because its true status cannot be demonstrated. That is, theologians which we would categorize under a particular model are not the ones who state or create that model; models are only general patterns of interpretation which theologians tend to follow.6

§34. CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS Not only do our presuppositions condition the creation of our models of interpretation; they affect our description and classification of the models used by others. Consequently, we must consider our own presuppositions in this section; then we will familiarize ourselves with some of the classifications

HOME PAGE MODELS AS TOOLS FOR UNDERSTANDING

117

available in the theological market; finally we will discuss how we will attempt to describe and classify models here.

1. Variety in Model Classification As there are a variety of models for interpreting revelation-inspiration, so there are several ways to identify, describe, and classify these models. This variety of classification sets exists because various theologians have different goals in classifying the various models. Consequently, our goal determines that we classify models of revelation-inspiration as classical, modern, and evangelical. But first, let us consider some examples produced by other theologians. Robert Gnuse speaks about strict verbal, limited verbal, nontextual, and social theories of inspiration,7 whereas Carl Henry refers to evangelical, liberal, and neo-orthodox approaches.8 Writing about revelation rather than inspiration, Avery Dulles distinguishes five different models: doctrinal, historical, experiential, dialectical presence, and new awareness.9 Likewise, Miikka Ruokanen notes three models: propositional, nonpropositional, and nonpropositional with new divinely-originated information.10 He has also designed two models of inspiration: the direct-instrumental and the integratedcontent theories. Obviously there are many ways to classify models of revelationinspiration.11

2. Hermeneutical Perspective As we continue, I will review the viewpoint from which we are classifying the models of revelation-inspiration. But as you read, bear in mind that any classification, including our own, is somewhat arbitrary. Remember, models are tools for analysis and description, so researches should be ready to prepare and tune their classification of models as sharply and precisely as they can. In this study, we are attempting to understand how the Bible came to be, particularly in relation to its claim that God is its author (see ยง18,19). Moreover, we have decided to approach our subject from a hermeneutical

HOME PAGE 118

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

perspective by examining the presuppositions which affect the interpretation of revelation-inspiration (§2.5.c). Our aim is not to defend a particular school of interpretation, but to understand why there are so many different interpretations of the same vital issue. As we have noted, since not all presuppositions apply to revelation-inspiration, we must identify which presuppositions are relevant. Hermeneutical presuppositions are broad issues we take for granted when we attempt to interpret it. In the case of the Bible’s origin, we discovered that the process of revelation-inspiration always involved divine and human agencies. Consequently, our understanding of the being and actions of God and of humans directly shapes our view of revelation-inspiration (cf. §25.3; also Chapter 6). From this perspective, we will classify interpretations of revelation-inspiration through the use of models, each of which will be decided by presuppositions about God and humanity. In this respect, the classical, modern, and evangelical models are not arbitrary choices, but reflect main turning points in Christian understanding of revelation-inspiration.

§35. REVIEW • Models as blueprints. Models are a sort of blueprint for the interpretation of doctrines. As the blueprint for a building includes all the guidelines for its construction, so models include all the characteristics of a specific type of doctrinal interpretation. • Models are ideal, broad, and play a presuppositional role. Models are ideal because they do not correspond precisely to any particular doctrine of revelation-inspiration. Consequently, they are broad because within the overall range of each of their primary characteristics, they allow for different interpretive details concerning revelation-inspiration. Models are general patterns that guide the formulation of doctrines and thus play a presuppositional role at the doctrinal level.

HOME PAGE MODELS AS TOOLS FOR UNDERSTANDING

119

• Models are built from hermeneutical principles. Hermeneutical principles such as the interpretations of supernature and nature, of God and human beings, directly influence the models of interpretation. Any change in the understanding these principles creates an opportunity for the development of a new model of doctrinal interpretation. • Models have limitations. A model does not completely describe the position of any theologian included within its parameters. Thus, models cannot be demonstrated because they are not explicitly formulated by theologians whom we would say fall within their boundaries. • Models can be classified from various points of view. When studying the landscape of theological interpretations of a doctrine, theologians can classify models in various ways depending on their overall goal and perspective. • Hermeneutical Perspective on Model Classification Models can be distinguished by the hermeneutical principles involved in the formulation of a given doctrine. Substantial changes in these principles allow for the formulation and/or identification of a new model. • The hermeneutical perspective for model classification leads to three models of revelation-inspiration. Changes in hermeneutical principles are not frequent, but take place only at pivotal times in the history of philosophical and theological thought. One can recognize three main models of revelation-inspiration from the hermeneutical perspective. They are the classical, modern, and evangelical models.

ENDNOTES

HOME PAGE 120

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

David Tracy explains that “a widely accepted dictum in contemporary theology is the need to develop certain basic models or types for understanding the specific task of the contemporary theologian” (Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988], 22). For further literature on models, see, e.g., Frederick Ferré, Language, Logic and God (New York: Harper, 1961); Ian Ramsey, Models and Mystery (London: Oxford University Press, 1964); and idem, Christian Discourse (London: Oxford University Press, 1965). 2

Tracy, 23.

Catholic theologian Hans Küng has used the term paradigm in this methodological sense. See Küng, Theology for the Third Millennium, trans. Peter Heinegg (New York: Doubleday, 1988), and idem, Christianity: Essence, History, and Future, trans. John Bowden (New York: Continuum, 1995). 4

Küng, Theology for the Third Millennium

Ibid., 29.

Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation (Maryknoll, NY: Oribs, 1992), 29.

Robert Gnuse, The Authority of the Bible: Theories of Inspiration, Revelation, and the Canon (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), 22-23, 34-41, 42-49, and 50-68. 8

Carl Henry, “Divine Revelation and the Bible,” in Inspiration and Interpretation, ed. John Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 256-269. 9

Dulles 27-28.

Miikka Ruokanen, Doctrina Divinitus Inspirata: Martin Luther’s Position in the Ecumenical Problem of Biblical Inspiration (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola Society, 1985), 19-23. 11

Ibidem.

HOME PAGE

8. THE CLASSICAL MODEL

Christianity’s conviction of the divine origin of Scripture followed the Jewish belief that Yahweh was the author of the Old Testament. For example, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote that the books of the Hebrew canon contained “divine doctrines.”1 In the same fashion, for centuries Christian authors trusted in the divine authorship of the Bible without attempting a theological understanding of it. Scripture’s divine origin was for them a matter of fact, a ground on which to build their understanding of the faith. But in time, theologians began to consider how the Bible came to be, focusing notably on the question of prophecy. Eventually, reflection on revelation and inspiration developed into a general school of interpretation, a model for interpreting questions about the Bible’s origin. After the Protestant Reformation, seventeenth-century theologians developed the doctrine of inspiration in great detail. It became a debated issue in Christian circles only after the Enlightenment, when modern theological interpretations challenged not only the validity but even the possibility of the classical understanding. In this chapter, we will use the model methodology of the previous chapter to analyze the structure of the first historical position on revelation-inspiration: the classical model.2 Understanding this model is vital because it reflects the thought of not only early Christian writers, but also that of many later thinkers. It is still how most conservative Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians view

HOME PAGE 122

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Scripture’s origin, so the importance of understanding it cannot be overemphasized. We will explore the classical model in three major steps: revelation, inspiration, and evaluation.

§36. REVELATION The biblical concept of revelation applies to many things. For instance, when the Holy Spirit illuminates a person’s mind to the teachings of Scripture, that is a true revelation of God. In Chapter 2, we learned that God also uses other objective means to reveal himself and his salvation to humanity. In this section, we will use the term “revelation” to describe how the contents of Scripture came to the mind of the human writer (§10). This relates directly to the claim that God is the author of Scripture (§18-19). If God is the source of the Bible, how did its contents originate in the minds of the human writers?

1. Nature and Supernature as Presuppositions For God to be involved in Scripture’s origin, he must come in contact with the human writer. There must be a divine-human encounter if God is to be the source of its contents. Throughout Christian history, believers have maintained that contact between God and the human writer was possible. But they have disagreed on the nature of the divine-human encounter that resulted in the Bible. How each model answers this question depends on how proponents of that model view nature and supernature (§28-30). The classical model depends on the timeless interpretation of nature and supernature, a view which, as we discussed in Chapter 6, came from the writings of Greek philosophers such as Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle. Though their thinking was extrabiblical and speculative, their influence on the classical view of God has been preserved in the writings of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and their subsequent traditions.

HOME PAGE THE CLASSICAL MODEL

123

According to this understanding, God is perfectly, infinitely timeless. Human beings, though existing within the flux of time, have timeless souls and through them share in God’s timeless reality. The timelessness of the soul is not perfect or infinite as God’s is, but it does provide a means within the flux of time by which God can encounter the mind of the human writer. Since the intellect is a capacity of the timeless soul, revelation takes place as a cognitive encounter between God and the mind of the human writer.

2. Enhancement of the Prophet’s Intellect What God communicates to the prophet are timeless truths. But how can the limited human mind receive divine, perfect, timeless truth? This problem leads to an important characteristic of the classical model. Aquinas explains that the human writer’s intellectual capabilities need to be elevated by God. The soul’s rational capabilities receive special power or charisma from God to prepare them for revelation. This power Aquinas calls “prophetic light” (lumen prophetiae). 3 Put another way, the prophetic light gives the soul’s intellect a burst of divine power. The writer’s mind is thus prepared to receive supernatural truth that will eventually be written down in Scripture. Because of the prophetic light, the intellectual capabilities of the biblical writers are immeasurably superior to those of common human beings. The prophet’s human abilities have to be elevated because God’s being, as perfectly infinite and unchanging, cannot accommodate the lesser, temporal being of the human. The human agency must accommodate the divine nature as much as possible without destroying itself.

3. Content of Revelation We now turn our attention to the process of revelation. As we have defined it, the process of revelation studies the origination of the contents of Scripture. The classical model claims there are two sources of scriptural contents: prophetic revelation and nature. The former stems from God’s supernatural action in the minds of the biblical writers,4 while the latter is derived directly from ordinary

HOME PAGE 124

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

knowledge.5 a. Prophetic Revelation: Communication of Timeless Truths The classical model asserts that divine revelation takes place only within this prophetic pattern. Revelation is understood as the divine communication of truths human beings cannot reach by themselves–supernatural truths. Because of how nature and supernature are assumed by classical thinkers, divine truths can only exist and be communicated within the realm of timelessness. That communication is a cognitive event between the mind of God and the soul of the prophet. Since revelation takes place in the intellectual mind, the classical model could be said to subscribe to the idea of thought revelation. Those chosen as prophets receive a boost of their natural, rational capabilities (cf. §36.2). The prophetic light not only enhances the prophet’s rational capabilities, but gives him the hermeneutical principles he will use to process his natural and supernatural information. Once the light of prophecy prepares the prophet’s mind, God infuses divine, timeless truths into that mind. Because God and the human soul are timeless, the truths that are communicated to the prophet by God are also timeless. When the classical model uses the word “timeless” to describe the truth or content communicated by prophetic revelation, it does mean permanence or unchangeableness throughout time. But its real emphasis is on the nontemporal, nonhistorical content of truth. God may choose to convey timeless truth directly as in the case of Solomon and the apostles, or by historical-temporal means as in the case of the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5:25) or the multi metal image (Daniel 2). The truth communicated through temporal-historical vehicles is, nonetheless, still considered to be timeless. To understand them, the prophet needs the assistance of the prophetic light, the elevation of his or her rational powers. In brief, revelation is the communication of supernatural, timeless truths.

b. Natural Sources

HOME PAGE THE CLASSICAL MODEL

125

The writers of Scripture also drew from various natural sources. When prophets wrote from history and nature, they processed the data through the prophetic light. But though they were guided by their supernaturally enlightened capabilities , some biblical writers gathered data through natural processes of knowledge and research. Consequently, proponents of the classical model believe that only some sections of Scripture are revealed. In other words, because some portions of the Bible consist mostly of historical data readily available to any literate person writing at that time, those portions cannot be considered to be supernatural revelation.

4. Conclusion on Classical Revelation Figure 1 is a diagram of the classical understanding of supernatural revelation. Again I am using an enlarged “H” to indicate nature and supernature. Again, as in Greek philosophy, the supernatural realm to

Figure 1: Revelation in the Classical Model which God’s being and actions belong is timeless. The prophet obviously dwells and functions within the natural level. Since the natural realm harbors a combination of timelessness and temporality, humans are thought of as a soul-body dichotomy. The body is temporal, but the soul

HOME PAGE 126

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

is timeless even as it is present in the body. Reason, or the intellect, is the soul’s primary defining characteristic. Reason reaches absolute, timeless truth within the realm of supernature by piercing beyond the temporal-historical level of reality and entering into the essence of all reality, which is always ultimately timeless. Since the natural capabilities of reason are insufficient for receiving supernatural truth, those capabilities must be elevated (Step 1). Notice that the soul of the prophet moves to the supernatural level; this represents how the prophet is able to receive supernatural truths after the gift of prophetic light. In other words, God infuses revealed truths in the mind of the prophets. Without this step, revelation (or the infusion of divine, timeless truths) is impossible. Next, at the point of revelation, God infuses divine truths into the mind of the prophet (Step 2), who retains the truths thus revealed in his or her memory afterwards (Step 3). Since God is the one infusing truth into the mind of the prophet, this position could be characterized as “thought revelation.”

§37. INSPIRATION As we have defined it earlier, inspiration is the process through which Scripture was written. Inspiration therefore presupposes revelation. According to the classical model, the contents of Scripture can be divided into supernatural, timeless truths, and natural, historical information. Once the contents are secure in the mind, the prophet must convey them in oral or written form. This is the process of inspiration. How does the classical model relate God to the prophet’s writing process?

1. The Two-Causes Theory The classical theory has used the Aristotelian idea of multiple causality to explain how God and the human agency interact in the writing of Scripture. Multiple causality simply means more than one cause in the generation of one reality. In the case of the Bible, the classical model teaches that God as author is the primary cause and human beings as writers are the instrumental cause. Imagine a sculptor using a chisel to create a statue. As the sculptor, and not the chisel, is the author of the work of art, so God, and not the human writer, is the author of

HOME PAGE THE CLASSICAL MODEL

127

Scripture. Human writers, as the chisel, play only an instrumental role. a. God as Primary Cause The primary cause is all-pervasive in the goals and results obtained by use of the instrumental cause. In the case of inspiration, first, as we just noted, God elevates the intellectual capacity of the soul and infuses it with supernatural truths. But God also supernaturally elevates the prophet’s practical writing skills. He conceives of the ideas and plan of the book, and leads the writer to them. Using the writer as an instrument, he writes what he wants written. Finally, God’s action on the prophet includes not only the outline of the book, but the very words and literary styles of the human writer. b. Human Agency as Secondary Cause The instrumental agency acts in two ways – its own, and that given by the primary cause. Charles H. Pickar uses the sculptor/tool analogy again: “As the total effect of a work of art is attributed to the artist as the principal cause and to his tools as the instrumental causes, so also, the whole effect of Sacred Scripture is produced by God the principal cause and by man the instrumental cause. Therefore God elevates and applies all the faculties of the sacred writer for the writing of Sacred Scripture in such a way that the human author does not act on his own, but in virtue of an action communicated to it by the principal agent.”6 However, prophets maintain some human deficiencies. The activity of the primary cause does not erase all the limitations and imperfections of the human writer. According to the classical model, the human writer contributes very little to the writing of the Bible in terms of individuality and thinking. Guided by the prophetic light, the prophet expresses in words the eternal truths he received in revelation and selects from the realm of natural data what will go into Scripture. In this the biblical writer appears to possess a great deal of freedom and contributes much to Scripture. But since God as primary cause also directs the prophet in the writing process, the human element in Scripture amounts to almost

HOME PAGE 128

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

nothing. God is in control of the ideas and the words of Scripture. The contribution of the prophet is negligible. c. Outcome If we accept this interpretation of inspiration, what kind of book is Scripture? It is verbally inspired and inerrant in content. Not only does the activity of God reach the words; it determines each word of the Bible (see ยง18.2). The inerrancy of all scriptural content logically follows from this theory. Since God is the author of its plan, content, and words, the Bible cannot contain errors of any kind. This theory proposes a very high view of Scripture.

2. Conclusion on Classical Inspiration Figure 2 depicts the role inspiration plays in the classical model. Since the process of inspiration builds on the process of revelation, this figure builds on Figure 1 of this chapter. After the writer has had his soul elevated by the light of prophecy and received the supernatural, timeless truths from God, he puts the revealed truth into writing: inspiration. The writer gathers information from natural sources to communicate the timeless truths. This process is directed by

Figure 2: Inspiration in the Classical Model

HOME PAGE THE CLASSICAL MODEL

129

the Holy Spirit, who as primary cause, uses the prophet as an instrument to produce the literary work. The Bible contains some revealed passages; the majority, however, are only inspired. Thus, only a few portions of Scripture communicate timeless truths. Most are instead illustrations of timeless truths.

Â§38. HERMENEUTICAL EFFECT How does the classical model function as a presupposition for hermeneutics? Before we answer this question, let us remember two things. First, we are told by this model that in revelation, God discloses timeless truths which we cannot access through the natural powers of the mind. Second, this view presents God not only as author, but also as writer. God, through the instrumentality of the human, is the one behind every word in Scripture.

1. Emphasis on Revelation Due to the cultural conditions of the first fifteen centuries of Christian history, theologians were not inclined to follow the classical view of inspiration to its logical consequence for hermeneutics. It took the Protestant Reformation for that (Chapter 10). But conservative Roman Catholicism and the mainline Protestant denominations depend on the classical model which associates the truth of Scripture with the timeless ideas it contains and not with its words. This explains why they never embraced the literalistic interpretation of American fundamentalism.

2. The Dehistoricizing of Theology The classical model affects the interpretation of the Bible by separating truth from history. The classical concepts of nature and supernature lead to the belief that in revelation, any truths communicated by God are timeless. The truths in the Bible are therefore timeless. Any historical aspects we find in the Bible are merely vehicles for timeless truth. In other words, the biblical writers were forced to use the language and circumstances of their own times to communicate Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

HOME PAGE 130

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

revelation to their generation. Theology based on this model is therefore separated from history. Because exegesis requires the interpretation of biblical texts, it cannot avoid working within the historical level of Scripture. But because the historical aspects are only the trappings or decorations of timeless truths, exegesis falls short of understanding those truths. Reaching the truth of Scripture requires the specialized services of human reason. Classical philosophy proposed that reason could pierce the historical wrapping into the core of timeless truth, but since with theology we are considering truths outside nature and time, this model proposes that we must have our natural powers of thought heightened if we are to understand. This heightening happens for the interpreter through the supernatural gift of faith. The boost of faith enables the human mind to reach the timeless truth within the historical, scriptural texts. Theology builds on those particular truths and cannot be distracted by the many other aspects of life considered in the Bible. In fact, theologians must not let themselves be sidetracked by the limited cultural perspectives of the biblical writers. Imagine a birthday present covered in wrapping paper. To become preoccupied with the historical-cultural aspects of the Bible would be like admiring the wrapping paper instead of the giftâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;timeless truth. Theology builds on the latter and considers the historicity of Scripture a mere illustration of truth.

3. Reduced Theological Content One wonders how much of the Bible is the gift, and how much is the wrapping paper. What is eternal truth, and what is mere illustration? There is no exact answer for this question. After reading the works of some classical theologians, one would be led to think that very few portions and notions of Scripture are explicit revelations of eternal truth. Most of Scripture is historical narrative and, thus, illustrative of truth rather than truth itself. Reason elevated by faith may be able to identify the truths under the historical wrapping, but there are not many of them. Most are found in the Apostleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Creed.7 From those few truths, the whole of theology may be deducted. One might say that all the eternal truth in the Bible fit on less than a page, while the illustrations take up the rest of the book.

HOME PAGE THE CLASSICAL MODEL

131

4. Illustration: Genesis Does Not Deny Evolution To illustrate the hermeneutical effects of the classical model, consider the biblical concept of creation. It is a timeless truth included in the Apostle’s Creed. From a reading of Genesis 1-2:3, one comes to the conclusion that God created heavens and earth during a period of six days, finishing with a seventh day devoted to rest. But classical theologians might take a second look and ask, “Did God really take seven days to create our planet?”The consistent answer throughout Scripture is, “Yes, He did.” Classical theology will find this idea impossible to believe. Remember, the classical model of revelation-inspiration depends on the Greek idea of nature and supernature, in which God is timeless and can only act timelessly. If you pause and try to understand or visualize what a timeless act would be, you will soon discover that it is not easy. From the perspective of someone within time, the only way to describe a timeless act is to say that it “happens instantaneously.” Of course this is only a metaphor because even Aristotle recognized that what we call an “instant” belongs to time. But the classical model works on this hermeneutical basis. The prophet’s rational capabilities were elevated to receive timeless truths, one of which is creation. When the human writer communicated the idea of creation in written form, he was forced to adapt to the cognitive level of his readers, who were unable to understand timeless truths directly. The human writers of Scripture, led by the Holy Spirit (inspiration), covered the timeless core (revealed truths) in temporalhistorical clothing (the story). That is why we find in the Bible the narration about the seven days of creation. The seven-days plot of the biblical story is not factually true, but instead is only a literary device to communicate the truth that God created heaven and earth. According to the classical model, God is not speaking about Creation in Genesis as a historical, but as a timeless occurrence. If the truth of creation does not involve seven literal days, we are left to ponder our own historical origins. For centuries, Christian theology accepted without hesitation the Genesis account as inspired, a supremacy suddenly challenged by the theory of

HOME PAGE 132

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

evolution. During the last two centuries, most scientists have become convinced that life on our planet is the outcome of a long process of evolution. Obviously this contradicts the biblical narrative. In spite of this, many Christian theologians have come to embrace the idea of theistic evolution, in which God created the world through evolution. How is this possible? By declaring that revealed truths are timeless, the classical model of revelation-inspiration places the seven days of the biblical story outside the realm of eternal truth. The truth is not that God created the world in seven days, but that God is the ultimate cause of our existence. Evolutionary theory becomes incompatible with Christianity only when theologians fail to distinguish between the timeless nature of divine revelation and its historical wrapping.

§39. EVALUATION The classical model of revelation-inspiration is still at the foundation of conservative Christian theologies. For example, the evangelical model only modifies the classical model, without rejecting its basic outline. We must, therefore, evaluate the classical model carefully. Is it an appropriate viewpoint from which we can understand Scripture’s origin? Or does it fall short? If we are to evaluate this or any model, we must have criteria from which we judge it. For any theory, not just models of revelation-inspiration, there are three criteria to consider: consistency, coherence, and practical application. Consistency looks inside the model for internal contradictions. Coherence measures whether the model corresponds to what we find in reality. Practical application evaluates the consequences and results of the model.

1. Criteria For Evaluation The data we use to evaluate a model of interpretation has to come from the subject we are studying— in our case, the origin of Scripture. As we have

HOME PAGE THE CLASSICAL MODEL

133

discussed, the data here is provided by the fact of revelation-inspiration: the existence of the Bible (see §13). The Bible itself presents two sets of data concerning its origin: the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture. The doctrine of Scripture affirms that God is the author of the Bible even at the level of words, while the phenomena of Scripture indicate to what extent human writers were involved in its formation. Any model of revelation-inspiration must be judged according to these two factors. They are the data for the criteria of consistency and coherence. In other words, on one hand they allow us to consider whether the classical model is consistent with Scripture’s declaration that God is its author, and on the other, whether the model corresponds to what we find in the reality of Scripture–the phenomena of its language. The third criterion, practical application, looks at the theological results. The application of the model is its “hermeneutical effect,” the presupposition of exegesis and theology. This final criterion reveals the strong and weak points of the model.

2. Consistency and Coherence The classical model passes the consistency test with flying colors, but fails the test of coherence. This model clearly teaches that God is the direct author of the entire Bible, from the general concept to content to literary style and words. But because of this overemphasis on the divine, the classical model does not allow for the many human characteristics of the text. In fairness to proponents of the classical model, they do recognize the limitations and deficiencies of the human side of the Bible’s origin. But their model places such a strong emphasis on the control and agency of God that the limitations they allow for in the human writers do not account for the greater evidence of human contribution that a careful reading of Scripture reveals. As an example, consider the prologue to Luke’s gospel (1:1-3). Luke asserts that the account he is writing is the result of his own initiative and research. However, according to the classical model, Luke’s narrative of gospel history and theology is a direct result of God’s plan and execution. If

HOME PAGE 134

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

this is so, Luke’s contribution to the formation of the gospel narrative is as significant as the chisel’s contribution to the sculpting of a statue. Moreover, when personal experiences are related in the Bible, it is difficult to imagine God, and not the ones who had the experiences, as the originator not only of the words, but also the contents of those passages (for example, David in Psalm 51). The emphasis of the classical model, then, suggests the Bible was created through a process more divine than human. For that reason, it is unable to provide a satisfactory hermeneutical framework for accurately understanding Scripture. As eighteenth-century theologians moved from a philosophical to a historical hermeneutic for understanding biblical texts, the classical model’s limitations became clear. The need for a different explanation of the Bible’s origin eventually led to the modern model, which we will examine in Chapter 9.

3. Practical Application The hermeneutical effect of the classical model of revelation-inspiration greatly restricts the theological scope of Scripture. Even the few portions containing revealed truths must be interpreted from extrabiblical philosophy and science. Instead of allowing Scripture to be self-sufficient, the classical model demands that its interpretation depend on human insight and wisdom. This theological scenario is certainly possible. However, the theological relevance of Scripture is so limited that one becomes suspicious of the entire explanation. Why would God create a book of helpful spiritual illustrations without much theological truth? The reduction of Scripture’s theological content by the classical model runs contrary to the conviction of most biblical writers— the testimony of Scripture about itself. Could the marriage of theology and philosophy have resulted in theological misdirection?

§40. REVIEW • The classical model is based on the classical understanding of nature

HOME PAGE THE CLASSICAL MODEL

135

and supernature. The classical model is based on the Platonic notion of supernature as a realm of timeless realities, and nature as that of transient, temporal duplication of those realities. God is the highest manifestation of timeless reality. Human beings consist of temporal bodies and timeless souls. The timeless God is able to communicate with the timeless human soul. • The Bible writers’rational abilities must be elevated for revelation. Reason is the cognitive instrument able to grasp God’s timeless revelation. But to be able to receive that supernatural revelation, the prophets’minds must be enhanced by the gift of the light of prophecy. • Divine revelation consists of timeless truths. After God has elevated the prophet’s reason to the timeless realm, He infuses into it the timeless truths he wants to communicate. • Only some of the contents of Scripture are revealed, but all are wholly inspired. Not all the contents of Scripture originate in God’s supernatural revelation. Most of its contents come from the prophet’s perception of natural and historical facts. However, the light of prophecy enhances his judgment of these data, and he makes them illustrations of divine truth. Only a small portion of the information in Scripture is of divine origin, while the rest is a gathering of natural and historical facts. • Broad and restricted uses of “revelation” Up till now we have used the word revelation to refer to how the contents of Scripture came to the minds of the Bible writers before they wrote them down. But the classical model uses the word in a restricted sense to refer to the timeless truths supernaturally given by God. Because of this limited sense, the classical model calls the revelation of Scripture partial; the Bible has a limited number of revealed truths.

HOME PAGE 136

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

• Classical model as “thought” revelation. The classical model of revelation-inspiration describes what could be called “thought” revelation. God gives in revelation truths or thoughts, not words. Of course, in inspiration, God does give the very words. Yet because this model favors revelation over inspiration, in practice the classical model teaches that theology ought to work from the timeless thought wrapped in Scripture, not from its words. • Inspiration: God as author (primary cause) uses the prophet as his instrument (secondary cause) to produce the words of Scripture. God as primary cause conceives the plan of the book, its contents, and its very words. The prophet, filled with the Holy Spirit, is the instrument producing the written work. • Inerrancy is the logical result of the verbal-plenary idea of inspiration. If God is both the creator of the plan of the book and the one who chooses the words, Scripture must be inerrant not only at the level of eternal, supernatural truths, but also at the level of nature and history. This was not an issue until the scientific method began to produce results that challenged the contents of Scripture. • The classical model is consistent in theory, but inconsistent in practice. The classical model is undoubtedly consistent with Scripture’s testimony about its own nature. But because it favors revelation over inspiration, and creates dehistoricizing interpretations, it is inconsistent with what the Bible says about itself–the doctrine of Scripture. For instance, the classical model of revelation-inspiration allows for either instantaneous creation or a long process of evolution, even though Scripture clearly teaches that God created the world in a process of seven literal days. • Lack of Coherence with the phenomena of scripture The classical model asserts that God is responsible for both the contents and the words of Scripture. Thus, the role of the divine agency is so great that it

HOME PAGE THE CLASSICAL MODEL

137

minimizes contributions of the human agency. But during the last two centuries, exegesis demonstrated that humans were involved in the Bible’s origin at a much greater level than the classical model anticipated. New discoveries began to challenge the theory and suggested that a new model should replace the old one.

ENDNOTES 1

Against Apion, I.8.

Although I have chosen to base my description of the classical model on Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of prophecy in Summa Theologica, bear in mind that this chapter is intended to describe a general model and not Aquinas’s position. 3

Summa Theologica, II-II. 171.2.

Ibidem, II-II. 171.5

Ibidem, II-II. 173.2.

Charles H. Pickar, “The Bible,” in Summa Theologica (New York: Benzinger, 1948), 3105. 7

Allow me to transcribe the text of the Apostle’s Creed so that the reader may gain insight into its contents: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic [or universal] church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen (“Historic Church Documents” in Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, [www.reformed.org]).

HOME PAGE

9. THE TURNING POINT BETWEEN THE CLASSICAL AND MODERN MODELS

We have become accustomed to change at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Continuous, rapid change is the one absolute from which postmodernity has not been able to free itself. Because we are continuously bombarded with new and astonishing discoveries, we find it hard to imagine life in earlier centuries, in which change evolved over many generations. The shift from the classical to the modern model of revelation-inspiration was such a change, momentous but long in development. Finding a new model of revelation-inspiration was inevitable. The classical model was consistent with the doctrine of Scripture, though over the years exegesis began to reveal phenomena within the text that caused problems for the modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s emphasis on Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s control over the very words of Scripture. But the advent of biblical exegesis does not, by itself, explain the shift. A momentous change was taking place in the deeper recesses of Western consciousness, but it took several centuries to bear fruit within the theological and religious community. Knowing why this particular change happened will help Christian theologians understand why change is the absolute of the postmodern world. In this chapter, we will detour from direct analysis to study the historical context that led to a revolutionary new interpretation of revelation-inspiration (Chapter 10). We will examine an essential aspect of modernity which

HOME PAGE 140

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

transformed theology’s philosophical grounds and consequent hermeneutical principles, creating quite a predicament for Christian thinkers. As we study, we will return to the area of philosophy to understand the shift in models. We will begin with a look at the long affair between philosophy and the medieval church. Then we will touch on philosophy’s modern independence from theology and the church, and how this affected the church in the modern age. Next, we will consider the new, modern interpretation of reason and examine an important theological decision which made that interpretation a turning point in theological history. We will conclude by looking at how the independence of philosophy from theology has divided Christianity into two separate camps.

§41. THE ENTANGLEMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND CHRISTIANITY Western philosophy started in Greece around the sixth century B.C. The views of Plato and Aristotle shaped the view of nature and supernature eventually adopted by the classical model of revelation-inspiration (Chapter 6). The philosophy of these two teachers shaped Western thought and progress for approximately two millennia. Classical philosophy and Christian theology became so entangled that by the thirteenth century A.D. the two became practically indistinguishable. Arguments about the authority of the church or about revelation were considered as much a part of philosophy as pronouncements from reason. With the advent of the modern age, philosophy freed itself from theology. However, theology has yet to achieve a similar independence from philosophical thought. Since Christian thought relies on philosophy for its methodology, any change in philosophical views demand a change in the teachings of the church. The modern era is so defined by the new meaning of reason it has been called the “age of reason.” Though reason played a role in the classical age, the modern age expanded its role even as it declared reason’s cognitive

HOME PAGE THE TURNING POINT

141

powers to be less than they were according to the classical view. Modernity departs from the classical view of reason in two important ways. Reason became the source of truth, beyond the restrictions imposed by the classical view, and it was no longer viewed as timeless. The modern age’s criticism and reinterpretation of reason directly affected the view of revelation-inspiration as a cognitive process forcing a reinterpretation of how the Bible came to be. Both the authority of reason and its new temporal limitations play important roles in the modern model of revelation-inspiration.

§42. PHILOSOPHY’S INDEPENDENCE FROM THE CHURCH While the medieval church synthesized reason with revelation, modern philosophy intensifies the secularizing role of classical reason. Philosophy first came into being as a crossover from myth to science. Before the birth of philosophy, humans understood themselves and their surroundings through religion and myth. Greek philosophy tried to reject the religious-mythological venue and search for truth more scientifically. But it still built many of its ideas on the old mythological realm. One could argue that philosophy began as the secularization of Greek religion. Christianity’s entanglement with philosophy meant that it, too, began to be secularized. During these two periods, the birth of Greek philosophy and the medieval church, philosophy never became totally independent from religion, myth, and revelation. At the beginning of the modern age, Francis Bacon and René Descartes were convinced that philosophy must become independent from religion. They began a search for truth based on reason and nature alone. By consciously and explicitly dissociating themselves from revelation and the church as sources of truth, Bacon and Descartes became harbingers of a new philosophy. Reason became supreme. This new-found freedom allowed philosophers to consider a plethora of new ideas, even if they contradicted church teaching. The theological unity imposed by the Roman Catholic church was ending, while a new age of ever-increasing disagreement was just beginning. As long as philosophy continued basing its

HOME PAGE 142

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

findings on classical ideas derived from religion, theology did not face major challenges. But when philosophy rejected classical tradition and began to search for truth independent of the church, Christian theology found itself facing a situation that would eventually divide it across denominational lines.

§43. REASON BECOMES BOUND TO TIME Philosophical changes do not take place overnight, nor are they the result of the ingenuity of one individual. However, some philosophers express the views of the age so well that they become representatives of their time and influence many thinkers for years to come. We have mentioned Aristotle as standing for the classical age; Immanuel Kant similarly represents the modern age. These two became icons of philosophy because of how they interpreted reason, which resulted in paradigm shifts during their respective periods. Morever, their views still present Christian theology with a choice in methodologies, resulting in divided schools of theological thought and Christian denominations.

1. Reason in the Classical View The classical understanding of knowledge, called “intellectualism,” is a complex issue to analyze, but here we will ask only two questions. First, what kind of knowledge does reason produce? Second, what kinds of objects fall within its reach? As we discussed in Chapter 5, knowledge takes place when the human subject encounters any sort of object. In the classical view, both the person and the object are by nature composites of timeless and temporal components. In human beings, the timeless component is the soul, while in inanimate objects, it is the substance or essence. Reason resides in the soul as its most notable characteristic and highest power, and is able to connect the timeless and temporal components. This is not a simple transaction. The timeless essence of objects is not available to the five senses. The senses allow contact with temporal reality, behind which the timeless component is supposed to exist. Reason takes over where the senses fail. Since reason is

HOME PAGE THE TURNING POINT

143

timeless, it allows human contact with timeless reality. While scientific knowledge is expressed in temporal-historical terms, it stands on the timeless essences of things. Reason’s role is to access this timelessness. As it pierces the temporal wrapping of an object into its inner timeless essence, reason reaches true, objective, scientific knowledge. Figure 1 represents the classical idea of reason. The two concentric circles on the left represent the cognitive human subject, while the two circles on the right represent the object. The soul, with reason as its highest feature, is represented as an inner circle because it is not visible to the human eye, but is contained within the material body; the same goes for the essence, the inner reality of the inanimate object represented on the right. The upper arrow represents what the five senses present in the body achieve – a knowledge of the external matter of the object. Both body and matter are temporal realities. Our sensory perception allows us to know what is changing and transient, passing illusions that Plato called “the shadows.” What is transient cannot be a basis for permanent truth and knowledge; it is mere opinion. Only constants – things true for all people at all times – may be considered truth. Sensory perception falls short of such an ideal. The lower arrow depicts the action and achievement of reason. Reason, as a timeless reality, can penetrate beyond the reach of sensory perception into the realm of timelessness. Thus reason allows us to reach the ultimate truth of things, truth that never changes with the passage of time nor from the perspective of

Figure 1: Classical Reason

HOME PAGE 144

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

different subjects. In other words, the classical theory proposes that all human beings are given the same objects to know and possess the same tool, timeless reason, with which to discover truth within the timeless essence of the objects. Consequently, differences in knowledge are explained as errors in reason. That is, this model assumes that an error takes place when a person follows his or her opinions based on sensory perceptions and emotions, rather than the information about the timeless essence of the object provided to the soul by reason. Since in the classical view reason is able to understand timeless objects, this model claims knowledge of the timeless truth of supernatural revelation. Clearly, reason plays a pivotal role in the classical model.

2. Reason in the Modern View Classical philosophy focused on interpreting reality. The scholarsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;question was, What can we know? Thus, issues like nature and supernature were of primary concern. Secondary issues, such as the interpretation of reason, were approached based on what philosophers understood about their primary concerns. In other words, classical authors began by interpreting reality as a whole, and from there attempted to understand reason and other epistemological issues. The modern age turned these priorities upside down. Instead of focusing on what they could know, modern philosophers asked, How do we know what we know? Instead of trying to interpret reality, they began by trying to interpret the human subject and its cognitive capabilities. The question of what is knowable was put on hold until this exploration was more complete. Instead of admitting that their views of reality were presuppositions for understanding reason as the proponents of the classical model did, modern theologians began with their views on reason and knowledge as presuppositions for interpreting reality. Modernity, therefore, focused on the human being instead of on overall reality. Immanuel Kant became a prominent representative of the modern age; his view of reason became an acceptable alternative to Aristotelian

HOME PAGE THE TURNING POINT

145

intellectualism. Here we will focus on one feature of Kant’s interpretation of reason: the historicizing of reason, central to the modern model of revelationinspiration. In his Critique of Pure Reason,1 Kant argues that reason is only able to reach the temporal wrapping of reality (phenomenon), falling short of reaching the timeless essence (noumenon). Kant’s view of reason is not entirely historicized, but because he claimed that reason works within the limits of space and time, he set the stage for that historicization, which has come to fruition in postmodernity.2 Figure 2 shows how this seemingly insignificant change is relevant. It mirrors Figure 1 by depicting the three basic components of the act of knowledge (reason). The two circles on the left represent the human subject, the two on the right the known object. The arrow depicts the relationship between them, established by reason. This basic structure is the same as in the classical model. The external circles represent the temporal side of both subject and object, body and matter respectively, whereas the internal circles stand for the timeless level, soul and essence. The modern view introduces what appears at first to be a minor change. Instead of being a part of the timeless soul, reason becomes a part of space and time within the body. Thus while the timeless level of soul and essence is still the basis of human and natural realities, reason is believed to operate totally within time and history. Notice that the arrow portraying reason’s operation originates in the outer circle; the temporal level of the body, including reason, is only able to understand the temporal level of the object. Two enormous consequences follow from this reinterpretation of reason. First, reason is limited in its understanding of any object. Second, reason is not timeless but historical. The first is a characteristic of modernity, the second, of postmodernity. For now, we will limit our discussion to the first of those two consequences. If Kant is correct, all of classical theology becomes suspect because it is built on an illusion – the notion that human reason can somehow contact timeless reality beyond space and history. While Kant did not deny the

HOME PAGE 146

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

existence of the soul and of God, he did maintain that since they are timeless, we cannot know them. Since reason as the power which humans have to understand reality had been thus understood in a new way, the classical view on nature and supernature also became open to reinterpretation. Even so, most modern philosophers continue to think of supernature as timeless, but reject the idea that nature has any nontemporal component. Therefore, the analogy of being between nature and supernature begins to lose its philosophical foundation.

Figure 2: Modern Reason

§44. A FATEFUL DECISION OF METHODOLOGY Why should we bother with what Plato or Kant said about reason? Won’t the Holy Spirit reveal truth as we read Scripture? Of course the answer is yes, but this understanding’s usefulness is limited to personal conviction. It leaves much to be desired if we as a community of believers at the local and universal levels are going to agree on our beliefs.

1. Intellectual Christianity As we discussed in Chapter 4, Scripture states clearly its divine origins.

HOME PAGE THE TURNING POINT

147

But it never clearly explains how God and the Bible writers actually interacted as the book was created. As preceding generations of Christians have left us a variety of interpretations of revelationinspiration, wide divisions have developed within Christianity. The problem of doctrinal conflicts cannot be resolved by simply saying that the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth (John 16:3). If the Holy Spirit is already leading all Christians into truth, why is there so much division in Christian theology? Simply attributing one’s theological view to the leading of the Holy Spirit is a dangerous combination of arrogance and ignorance; no Christian believes he or she is not being led by the Holy Spirit, and yet Christians disagree. Because many questions of revelation-inspiration remain unanswered in Scripture, and because differing answers supplied by theology have divided the community of faith, even biblically minded Christians are forced to recognize the complexity of the subject. Moreover, Christians are commanded by Christ to love God not only with their hearts and bodies, but also with their minds (Matthew 22:37). God allows people to ask questions. Thus, those who are truly looking for answers should not be criticized. Their questions are usually determined by their experience, so an absence of questions does not reveal a “higher” level of faith or experience. In fact, those reading and meditating seriously on Scripture are bound to have more questions than those who do not. Thus, to question is not wrong. Rather, it is a positive part of the process of spiritual growth. The problem lies not in the act of questioning, but on the source one chooses to answer his or her questions.

2. Philosophy and the Hermeneutical Principles of Christian Theology Motivated by the practical desire to defend and share their faith, early Christian thinkers began to use philosophical sources – a momentous methodological decision. Initially, they intended not to modify the faith by philosophy but to use philosophy as a missionary tool. But after several centuries, what had begun as a missionary tool became a series of theological presuppositions determining classical hermeneutics. For example, when we read Augustine, we discover that his teaching is based on hermeneutical principles drawn from Greek philosophical sources,

HOME PAGE 148

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

especially Platonism and Neoplatonism. He made the same mistake Philo of Alexandria had made several centuries earlier. In another case, Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle’s writings to define the hermeneutical principles of his theology. As time passed, the use of philosophy as a source for hermeneutical principles became increasingly accepted within Christianity, as were the consequences of those principles for theology and doctrine – for example, the natural immortality of the soul. 3 The Roman Catholic Church is known to accept two sources of revealed authority: Scripture and the tradition of the church, in which philosophy plays a notable and open role. Following that lead, most Protestant and evangelical schools of theology have allowed philosophy to become a ground and source of theological thinking. They justify this inclusion based on the biblical idea of general revelation, but insist that Scripture is the controlling hermeneutical element. We have discussed why we have departed from this approach in §6 and 7. But because of this dependence on philosophy, theology found itself faced with a startling choice when the modern age arrived. How did this happen? During the classical age from the second to thirteenth century A.D., Christian theologians drew certain doctrines such as the immortality of the soul from Greek philosophy, primarily Plato and Aristotle. More importantly, they also drew their hermeneutical principles and consequently all their theology from Greek philosophy. They had become convinced that without philosophical assistance, theology would not function properly. Christian thought had willfully become dependent upon philosophy. Thus in practice, the sola Scriptura principle had been replaced by prima Scriptura (Scripture first). At first, theologians found that depending on philosophy was a good bargain because it saved them the time-consuming task of creating an intellectual framework for theology from scratch. Without copyright laws, they could use the ideas of prior philosophers without having to acknowledge where those ideas came from. But this dependence on philosophy created a stormy predicament for Christian thinkers with the advent of the modern era.

HOME PAGE THE TURNING POINT

149

§45. THE WATERSHED: ARISTOTLE OR KANT? Modern philosophy not only declared itself independent of the church’s authority, but asserted that the traditional interpretation of reason, as understood by the church, was also wrong. These conclusions did not become consequent overnight, nor did they gain a foothold in all philosophical schools. At first, this reorientation was merely a new alternative to traditional philosophy. Kant’s interpretation of reason was more revolutionary in the theological than philosophical field. The entire edifice of classical theology suddenly found itself on shaky ground. Theologians had become convinced they had to obtain their hermeneutical principles from the supermarket of philosophy (§44). Of course, they rejected some notions they had found there, and adjusted others. They had no doubt that Platonic and Aristotelian thought had given them the necessary intellectual foundation for theology. But in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, theologians discovered a new and revolutionary product in the philosophical supermarket, one which contradicted the classical understanding. What could they do? Should they hold onto the classical notion of reason, which allowed contact between God and humans through the reasoning power of the timeless soul? Or, should they start over with a new definition of reason, and reinterpret all of Christian theology? Foremost of all, what source could they turn to for help in their decision? Philosophy was their answer, and it too became engulfed in turmoil and radical change. Theologians were forced to make decisions based on their own instincts and feelings. Most decided to retain the Aristotelean definition of reason and reality. Others determined that Kant was correct and began reinterpreting Christian theology from its foundation up, part of which was the doctrine of revelation-inspiration. These decisions divided Christian theology across denominational lines, resulting in what are now known as conservative and liberal positions. Since “conservative” and “liberal” mean many different things in different contexts, let us clarify that they refer to the classical and modern schools of theology, respectively. “Conservative”

HOME PAGE 150

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

theology continues to derive its hermenutical principles and teachings from classical philosophy, while “liberal” theology uses modern philosophical views. In the next chapter, we will explore the consequences of such a change in this one hermeneutical principle of theology for revelationinspiration.

§46. REVIEW • Philosophy became entangled with theology during the Middle Ages. When philosophy originated in Greece in the sixth century B.C., it began a process of secularization from previous religious ideas. The great systems of Plato and Aristotle never became totally secularized, however. During the Middle Ages, theologians interwove Greek philosophical ideas with Christian religious ideas. • Modern philosophy became independent from Christian theology. Francis Bacon and René Descartes helped move philosophical research away from the authority of the church to an authority based on reason and nature. • Modern philosophy asserts that reason can reach only spacial, temporal objects. While modern thought still considers the soul and God to exist on a timeless level, reason is merely temporal and therefore cannot reach either. Immanuel Kant was influential in formulating and spreading this view. • The major schools of Christian theology use philosophy to define the hermeneutical principles used for theological thinking. Very few theologians dare to challenge this widespread methodological assumption, even as it presents them with an unexpected choice.

HOME PAGE THE TURNING POINT

151

• Theologians’ dependence on philosophy is the cause of the rise of modern theology. By basing its hermeneutical principles on philosophy, classical theology made itself vulnerable to the whims of philosophy. Any changes in philosophy radically affected theology because theology was tied to philosophical reflection. • By challenging the classical view of reason, modernity became the external cause for the rise of modern theology. When philosophers chose not to recognize the authority of the church over their discipline, they could develop new ideas and make possible new theological synthesis. This jeopardized the supremacy of the classical synthesis, and eventually brought it to an end with the rise of modern theology. • The Choice: Aristotle or Kant With modernity, theology suddenly had more than one philosophical basis with which to begin its work. Should it follow the classical framework advanced by Aristotle or the new one conceptualized by Kant? • The Hermeneutical Division of Christian Theology The dependence of theology on philosophy for its hermeneutical presuppositions, together with the rise of Kantian philosophy, set the stage for the division of Christian theology. Two separate camps developed: the classical (conservative), and the modern (liberal). Each group has its own understanding of revelation-inspiration; we will examine the modern model in the next chapter.

ENDNOTES 1

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (Buffalo,

HOME PAGE 152

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

NY: Prometheus, 1990). 2

For an introduction to the postmodern historicizing of reason, cf. John D. Caputo, Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition, Deconstruction, and the Hermeneutic Project (Bloomington: Indian University Press, 1987). 3

On the question of the immortality of the soul and its nonbiblical status, cf. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 1997).

HOME PAGE

10. THE MODERN MODEL

When Kant’s new interpretation of knowledge emerged, it did not force a reinterpretation of revelation-inspiration and Christian doctrine until a sizeable number of Christian theologians became convinced it was more accurate than Aristotle’s view. Once that happened, those theologians were forced to deconstruct theology as it had been classically understood, since knowledge was now limited to space and time. The notion that God’s revelation involved knowledge became impossible. After all, if God is timeless and cannot enter the space-time continuum, He could hardly have originated the contents of Scripture. Worse, Christian theology risked becoming groundless, because if God cannot enter the human experience, religion and theology are empty and without content. If Christian theology was to survive in the modern age, it needed a new foundation. As modern theologians set out to reinterpret revelation-inspiration, they were confronted by a simple question: Is there a zone in which a timeless God may get in touch with temporal, spatial human beings, besides the zone of knowledge? In other words, if God cannot relate to human beings through knowledge, can He relate to other levels of human experience? Theology after Kant needed not only a new understanding of revelation-inspiration, but also a new “zone” or “level” where it could take place.

HOME PAGE 154

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

§47. REVELATION Friedrich Schleiermacher, known today as the father of modern theology, developed both the foundation and framework for the modern view of revelation-inspiration. Over the years, Schleiermacher’s explanation of the origin of Scripture was endorsed by an ever-increasing number of theologians who accepted the Kantian limitation of human knowledge. His interpretation of revelation-inspiration became dominant in Christian thought. Schleiermacher’s views of revelation tend to stand behind most modern and postmodern approaches to systematic theology as well as the historical-critical methodology pervasive in contemporary biblical exegesis. However, his views were and are influential as they provide an alternative to the classical model. Moreover, they are the precursors to many subsequent theories of revelation-inspiration, among them the ideas of Rudolf Otto, Martin Buber, and Emil Brunner. In this chapter, however, we will limit our exploration of the modern model of revelation-inspiration to Schleiermacher’s basic blueprint, following the model methodology explained earlier (§34-36) .

1. The New Zone: Feeling Replaces Reason The modern model of revelation-inspiration is known as the “encounter theory.” This does not imply that the earlier classical model did not describe an encounter between God and the biblical writer. The two views differ on what the divine-human encounter consists of, specifically in what zone it takes place. As we have discussed, the classical theory asserts that the encounter happens within the intellectual experience of the human writer. It therefore involves the communication of cognitive contents. God gives eternal truth out of his own wisdom to the prophet and through him or her to the Jewish and Christian communities. In the classical view, God encounters the prophet and gives him specific ideas to write down. As we discussed in the previous chapter, Kant believed reason and knowledge were limited to time and space, making it impossible for God to contact human

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

155

beings on an intellectual level. In other words, since God is timeless, he cannot give temporal human beings cognitive information. Since Schleiermacher accepted Kant’s view of reason, he could not accept an intellectual exchange between God and humans. To deny the possibility of a divine-human encounter brings us to deism, a popular trend of thought in Europe during the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. Most deists rejected the possibility of supernatural revelation, but believed that human reason could obtain knowledge of God’s existence. Consequently, most deists accepted God as the principle cause of the universe, but denied His providential involvement in its development. For Schleiermacher, the deist understanding was inadequate for reinterpreting Christian theology, specifically revelation-inspiration, because it did not provide grounds for a real point of contact between a timeless God and historical human beings. Without that point of encounter, deism provided a natural theology, or at best a natural religion. But it could not support the basic claim of Christianity— that Christ enters into a personal, salvific relationship with human beings. To provide new grounds for the divinehuman encounter, Schleiermacher went beyond deism and Kant’s rational theology, and suggested that the divine-human encounter takes place in a zone of human experience other than the intellect. At the age of thirty-one, Schleiermacher published Speeches On Religion.1 His purpose was to present his cultured friends, who did not think much of the claims and status of Christianity, with an explanation of the faith that they could not reject. Schleiermacher argued that Christianity belonged to the very nature of humanity. To be human necessarily involves being religious. By despising Christianity, Schleiermacher’s friends were neglecting an essential component of human nature and, thus, were not reaching their full potential. Schleiermacher claimed that human nature includes three interrelated, indivisible components: reason, action, and feeling. The operation of reason gives rise to science; action gives rise to ethics; and feeling gives rise to religion. Proponents of the classical model had mistakenly assumed that Christian theology and experience were grounded on either science (theology)

HOME PAGE 156

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

or ethics (moral behavior). In contrast, according to Schleiermacher, Christian theology and experience do not build on theological or ethical grounds, but on those of human emotion. In this simple assertion, Schleiermacher changed the grounds of not only the doctrine of revelationinspiration, but of the entire edifice of Christian doctrine. Before this, classical Christian theologians of both the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions had assumed that their work was based on sources in the cognitive or scientific “zone” of human experience. Schleiermacher boldly contended instead that Christian theology is ultimately based on human feeling— the feeling of absolute dependence. In switching the zone of Christian experience from cognition to feeling, Schleiermacher created the most radical paradigm shift in the history of Christian theology.

2. Working Assumptions Twenty-three years after the publication of the Speeches on Religion, a more mature Schleiermacher wrote his chief work, The Christian Faith.2 There he presented a brief but comprehensive reinterpretation of the classical teachings of Christianity. Among the issues that he analyzed was revelationinspiration; he wrote in detail on how he believed God contacts human

Figure 1: Modern Model of Revelation-Inspiration

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

157

beings. Our study of Schleiermacher’s view, the modern paradigm of revelation, will begin with Figure 1. Examine it carefully before reading the explanation, and remember to keep in mind our earlier diagram of the classical model, presented in §36.4, Figure 1. a. God as a Timeless Nonhistorical Reality The diagram in Figure 1 is based on the same “H” structure we used before, and represents the supernatural and natural realms. Once again, God belongs to the supernatural realm, while the human writers of Scripture dwell at the natural level. The modern model of revelation-inspiration adopts the classical timeless view of God without criticism.3 God’s actions, including revelation are assumed to take place within the dynamics of this nonhistorical, static reality. b. Human Nature as Historical “Consciousness” The modern model’s major change has to do with human nature. This change consisted of two beliefs. First, as we have discussed, Kant decided that reason was limited to temporal and spacial realities. Second is the modern “turn to the subject.” The best way to understand this idea is to compare it with the classical “turn to the cosmos.” The phrase “turn to the cosmos” refers to the assumption that the external world exists. Proponents of this view never questioned the reality of the external world nor the human capability to know. In contrast, “turn to the subject” means that the modern thinker doubted the reality of the external world and, therefore, was forced to build his or her reflections from the subject and the contents of his or her mind. Schleiermacher refers to the human nature involved in revelation and theology as “consciousness.” We must distinguish consciousness from “conscience.” The latter is an ethical term that usually evokes the principles that govern our individual or social conduct, whereas the former embraces all human experience. Specifically, “consciousness” refers not only to being awake, but also to all the accumulated experience

HOME PAGE 158

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

stored in our minds. Each person’s consciousness is based directly on his or her individual history. According to Schleiermacher, reason was included within this idea of consciousness. In the classical view, reason was assumed to be part of the timeless soul, but in the modern view it had become limited to historical reality and was outside the soul. Modern thinkers had stripped the soul of reason and consciousness, but they still assumed that as part of human nature,4 the soul was the point of contact between God and the human being. At the point of revelation, God would touch the soul of the writer but not his consciousness. Yet, through its emotions human consciousness picks up the reverberations of the divine touch.

3. Content of Revelation Any idea of revelation necessarily implies a connection, contact, or “encounter” between God and humans. How theologians understand and articulate this encounter shapes their view of revelation, and consequently their entire theological framework. Their view of the divine-human encounter is based on how they understand divine and human nature. The modern model of revelation is known as the “encounter” theory because it presented a new interpretation of that encounter between God and the prophet. a. The Anatomy of the Encounter In The Christian Faith, Schleiermacher describes the encounter theory in great technical detail. To understand his view in broad terms, let us return to Figure 1. Schleiermacher reinterpreted the classical understanding of knowledge by moving the place of encounter from cognition to emotion. While the divine-human contact required for revelation cannot take place within the realm of knowledge, nothing prevents it from taking place within the realm of human feelings. Knowledge and emotion are both located within the zone of human consciousness. Emotions are internal modifications of our consciousness that generally come from our cognitive experiences. For instance, a person is

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

159

often able to trace the anger he or she feels inside to a cause within space and time. However, Schleiermacher posited that as we scan the entire surface of our consciousness, we will eventually stumble onto a feeling of absolute dependence. This absolute dependence differs from all other feelings in that it does not come from a spacial or temporal experience. However, the fact that we find no spacial-temporal cause for our feeling of absolute dependence does not mean that this feeling is causeless. Schleiermacher believed that our inability to find a cause in space and time strongly suggests the existence of a timeless cause. He proposes that God must be this timeless cause, or the “whence” from which the feeling of absolute dependence comes.5 In short, God is called upon to play the role of hypothetical cause of our feeling of absolute dependence. I say “hypothetical” because, according to Schleiermacher’s view, we are not conscious of God’s presence, nor of the origin of the feeling of absolute dependence; we are only aware of that feeling. In other words, since no special cognitive content has been communicated from God as he generated the emotion of absolute dependence, the human reaction is one of feeling with no cognitive thought. How does this divine-human encounter enter the realm of human consciousness? In other words, if the feeling of absolute dependence plays such a pivotal role in Schleiermacher’s view, how is it generated? It comes into existence in our consciousness as an emotional reaction to the objective action-presence of God in the inner recesses of our soul. The divine encounter reverberates in the level of consciousness as an emotional reaction. But this is not all. As do all emotions, the feeling of absolute dependence attaches itself to whatever is in our consciousness when the encounter takes place. In this indirect way, the presence of God in the human soul finds expression in human consciousness. b. Example: The Pebble and the Pond It might be difficult to visualize the relationship between the feeling of absolute dependence and the content of Scripture. Let us compare our consciousness to a pond. Then, imagine that God’s action is like a pebble thrown into the pond, generating waves that eventually reach the shore. Clearly, the falling pebble does

HOME PAGE 160

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

not create the water or anything in it (our consciousness or its contents); the pebble merely ripples the pond’s surface. The water itself does not cause the rippling, but the pebble does. Like the pebble hitting the water, the encounter does not create contents in the prophet’s mind, but “makes waves” in his or her consciousness. The pebble does not communicate “pebbly” things to the pond. As nothing new is added to the water but the rippling, so nothing new is created in the religious consciousness of the prophets but the emotional waves produced by the divine encounter – the feeling of absolute dependence. Water can only experience watery things, certainly not pebbles; it only experiences the rippling produced by the pebble. Likewise, the prophet experiences the feeling of absolute dependence, but not God’s encounter. c. Summary The modern model consists of four main points. First, revelation is an encounter. God enters into direct contact with human beings, who live in space and time. Due to God’s nature, however, the encounter takes place not within the spatiotemporal level of history and reason, but in the timeless, spaceless realm proper to what are believed to be the natures of God and the human soul. Second, revelation is objective. Because the divine-human encounter takes place in reality rather than in the human imagination, Schleiermacher’s theory claims to be objective and real, not subjective or imaginary. Third, revelation is personal. The encounter does not involve the communication of any information, knowledge, or truth. Revelation discloses a person, God, rather than knowledge about or from Him. Fourth, revelation generates its own cognitive witnesses. The encounter enters the level of human consciousness indirectly by stirring up the emotions. This final point brings us to a look at the connection between the encounter and the actual contents of Scripture.

§48. INSPIRATION

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

161

We have examined the modern model of revelation; now we turn our attention to its understanding of inspiration. Remember, “inspiration” as we have been using it is a technical word for the process by which the Bible was written down. Without inspiration, however it is defined, the experiences and ideas of biblical writers would have died with them. We must also continue to recognize that we cannot explore the writing of Scripture apart from the process of revelation that precedes it. Obviously, before something is put into writing, it must first exist in the mind of the writer. We have been examining revelation first to figure out the role of God in the generation of the ideas in the prophets’minds. In the modern model, the short answer to that question is simple. God has nothing to do with the contents of the Bible in terms of the knowledge they relate. All biblical contents spring from the knowledge and imagination of the prophets or holy writers. But the modern model does not end the discussion by declaring that Scripture is an ordinary book. On the contrary, the writers of Scripture are held in high esteem because they are witnesses to the divine-human encounter.

1. The Indirect Connection Theory Schleiermacher proposes an indirect connection between revelation and inspiration, mediated through the feeling of absolute dependence. God relates to our consciousness indirectly, through this feeling. Instead of a direct causal connection as in the classical model, the modern model suggests an indirect connection, more like attachment. a. Connection By Attachment According to the classical model, the connection between God and Scripture is categorized as cause, i.e., God (cause) brings about the contents of Scripture (effect). In the idea of “connection by attachment,” cause and effect are associated by proximity and timing. The connection does not happen because the cause creates the effect; instead, because they happen close to each other, they become attached or associated via the emotions.

HOME PAGE 162

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

b. Example: Enjoying Music If you enjoy music, you already understand how inner emotions attach themselves to spatiotemporal experiences. Familiar melodies can evoke a special mood, but also even call to mind past events. When my wife and I hear Rachmaninoff’s second piano concerto, we are transported to the time and place of our earliest romantic encounters. We relive those experiences in our imaginations when our mood attaches itself not only to the music we hear in the present – its spatiotemporal cause – but also to the contents that were present in our consciousness when we were engaged. Similarly, the modern model of revelation asserts that the feeling of absolute dependence attaches itself to whatever was happening in the prophet’s mind and life at the time the encounter took place. How did this attachment cause them to write down the contents of Scripture? c. Encounter Attaches to Culture Because the biblical writers were more sensitive to religious experiences than most people, they were able to perceive with greater clarity the feeling of absolute dependence generated by the encounter. Moreover, they felt they had to tell others of their experiences. But the biblical writers could not communicate the encounter simply because they had a consciousness of it. After all, feelings are subjective and communication can take place only through objective means. So, the prophets were left to express their encounters by using the ideas and contents they were experiencing when the feeling of absolute dependence came over them. These ideas were not generated by God in the encounter; the prophet learned them just as any ordinary person would learn about culture, history and science. The modern view of inspiration claims that all the information and ideas in the Bible came from ordinary sources available to the prophets in their time. God did not originate a single fact or concept we read in the biblical text. This view raises two important questions. Why did the prophets write the Bible and what is the role of Scripture in the life of the believer and in Christian theology? We will

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

163

answer these questions in a moment.

2. A Broader Picture In the classical model, inspiration is like a divine energy enhancing the rational powers of the prophet’s soul and guiding him in the process of writing Scripture. But since in the modern model God is unable to communicate knowledge or cognitive thoughts, He presents Himself in the soul of the prophets only to reveal His being. The modern view does allow that the encounter is a powerful emotional experience that reveals God and saves the prophet, and if its description is accurate, we would expect a strong response from the prophet. We might wonder how an ambiguous feeling could be perceived as “salvation”, but there is no doubt that according to this theory the divine encounter produces a colossal impact on the life of the prophets. The modern model of inspiration rides on the aftermath of the encounter. a. Analogy with the Arts In the classical model, the Bible was written supernaturally; God intervened to ensure that the human writers accurately described the truths He had given them. According to the modern model of inspiration, the Bible was written just like other books, except for its religious basis and goal. Since no cognitive truth was communicated in the encounter, the process of writing – inspiration – needs no supernatural intervention or guidance by the Holy Spirit. Does the modern model need a concept of inspiration? The answer is yes, but the modern model views inspiration not as divine guidance, but divine motivation to express the religious encounter in words. Writing about his experience allows the prophet an objective means to express a subjective reality. The intensity of the experience justifies this use of objective means to describe a personal experience. In other words, the religious encounter is so earthshaking that it requires an outlet for relief. The prophet finds relief by expressing his

HOME PAGE 164

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

experience within the world of objective realities in space and time. Writing is just one of many ways in which the intensity of feeling bursts out. In the modern model, the intensity of religious feeling provoked by the encounter serves as inspiration only because it has to express itself in writing. Inspiration is like a burning sensation inside the prophet, who can find relief only as he witnesses to others about his encounter with God. The modern model clearly likens the inspiration that expresses itself in the writing of Scripture to that which results in a work of art. As artists attempt to communicate subjective moods such as beauty or anger by way of objective means like painting or poetry, so the biblical writers have attempted to communicate a religious mood. Although the content of communication may be different, the process through which it is communicated is the same. The modern model concludes that Scripture is to be regarded as a work of art, the contents and words of which are totally determined by its authors and the cultures to which they belong. We cannot study Scripture to discover cognitive truth about God or the world, but only to become aware of the divine as it encounters us in the depth of our beings. b. Liturgical and Missiological Goals The biblical authors’goal in expressing the divine encounter has two aspects, liturgical and missiological. The liturgical goal is to respond to God’s presence by worshiping. Worship is a response by the believer to God’s revelation and salvation, but can only take place within time and history, the objective world where the believer lives. Since our subjective experiences are often best expressed in objective language, we should not be surprised that holy men recorded their religious experiences in oral or written form. For the missiological aspect, the prophets’oral and written expressions were intended to evoke the source of the feeling of absolute dependence – the experience of the divine. The words point beyond themselves to the realm where we ourselves might encounter the divine. In other words, the prophets wanted others to have the same experience, and wrote to encourage others to search for the divine within themselves. Thus, the prophets’motivation was the religious experience of absolute dependence; their goal was that others experience that

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

165

feeling too.

§49. THE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECT To summarize, the modern model views revelation as an encounter, and inspiration as artistic expression. Applying these two principles as hermeneutics for interpreting the Bible and doing theology dramatically affects both biblical and systematic theologies. Their application forces a radical reinterpretation of exegesis and Christian teaching (hence Christian churches are divided across denominational lines; the conservative-liberal debate in twentieth-century American Protestantism was based on the differences between the classical and modern concepts of revelationinspiration). At the most basic level, the modern view depreciates the realm of theology from a divine to a human level. This expresses itself in the historical-critical method of exegesis, and the historicizing of systematic theology.

1. The Historical Conditionality of the Biblical Text The concept of historical conditionality is another complex and technical topic we must discuss. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, practitioners of the historical-critical method of exegesis built on the conviction that Scripture is historically conditioned. What does this mean? Simply, that the contents of the entire Bible are based on the cultures in which the biblical authors lived and wrote. Since we have already studied the classical and modern models of revelation-inspiration from a hermeneutical perspective, we are able to examine more closely the idea of “historical conditionality.” Obviously, the biblical writers had to work within the historical context of their culture. But while the idea of history is important, we must also consider the other half of the term: “conditionality.” Conditionality must be distinguished from cause. The idea of cause has a positive, creative sense, in which something brings something else into

HOME PAGE 166

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

being. The idea of condition, on the other hand, implies that something is prerequisite for something else to occur.6 Both the cause and the condition must be present to produce a given result. Simply put, a condition is a subordinated cause. A condition must be present for something to happen, yet that thing will not happen without a cause. The English dictionary may help us clarify these definitions. We may understand the word “condition” if we think of it as a prerequisite, that is, “something essential to the appearance or occurrence of something else.”7 For instance, we know that “available oxygen is an essential condition for life.”8 However, we do not claim that oxygen is the cause of life. The cause of life is evolution or creation, not oxygen. Yet if oxygen were not present for the process, plants and animals could not exist. When theologians say that the Bible is historically conditioned, they mean that history and information we find in Scripture were derived from their cultural context as necessary means to communicate the divine timeless encounter. What was that cause? The process of revelation by God. Remember, both the classical and modern models place revelation outside of time and history. Therefore, the cause and the condition are believed to work on two different and incompatible levels of reality; that is, timelessness does not cause temporality nor does temporality cause timelessness. That is why the timeless soul alone is capable of receiving revelation, for in the modern (and classical) model, revelation is by definition timeless. Consequently, in both views, history has nothing do to with the essence or content of revelation. Yet, without history, revelation is incommunicable because humans are historical beings. Anything we might find in Scripture that has to do with history or culture is merely wrapping paper for the gift of divine, timeless revelation. The difference between the classical and modern models is not how they view the historical expression of revelation (inspiration), but in what a timeless act of God involves. In the classical view, revelation is the communication of cognitive truth; in the modern view, revelation is only a feeling of absolute dependence. Since the classical and modern models agree that history

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

167

conditioned how the prophets expressed revelation, theologians from both camps are able to use the historical-critical method. However, keep in mind that the historical-critical method was constructed by theologians espousing the modern model of revelation-inspiration.

2. The Historical-Critical Method a. Historical Origins For centuries, theologians played down the historical meaning of Scripture. Origen and the Alexandrian school of theology tended to interpret the Bible allegorically. In contrast, during the fourth century A.D. Lucian and the school of Antioch tried to interpret the Bible literally and historically. During the same period, John Cassian distinguished between the historical and spiritual senses, arguing that the latter included the tropological (practical-ethical), allegorical (what is hidden beneath the literal sense), and anagogical (eschatological) senses.9 During the Middle Ages, these four senses, termed “quadriga,” became the standard method of biblical interpretation. Thomas Aquinas emphasized the historical-literal aspect as the foundation for the other three senses,10 but it was only with the Protestant Reformation that the historical sense became decisive in the constitution of Christian theology. “The literal or historical sense of the text argued by the Reformation-era exegete was not . . . a bare literal understanding of the text but rather an understanding that took into consideration the larger theological context and specifically the meaning of the divine author as presented in the Bible as a whole.”11 The Reformers elevated the value of the historical meaning of the Bible, but they depended on philosophy as an interpretive foundation just as Christian thinkers had been doing for more than a millenium. However, the Reformation implicitly promote some changes in the philosophical presuppositions of classical Christian theology. René Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, went beyond the Reformation and challenged the practice of basing truth on either the authority of the church or supernatural revelation. He argued instead that reason and the scientific method alone can

HOME PAGE 168

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

reach truth with any objective certainty. Embracing Descartes’s rationality, pantheistic philosopher Baruch Spinoza wrote Theological Political Treatise, about methodological issues involved in interpreting Scripture.12 For example, using rational arguments, he argued against the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and accused biblical history of being “untrustworthy.”13 The rationalism of Descartes and Spinoza was followed by the empiricism of John Locke and David Hume. The empiricists agreed with the rationalists on the central role of reason, but disagreed on the origin of cognitive knowledge. Locke published Essay Concerning Human Understanding in 1690, and Hume wrote An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in 1751. In their works these two rejected the classical idea that true knowledge is timeless and resides in the soul, arguing instead that true knowledge is only available through our spatiotemporal senses. This simple proposal not only dismissed biblical revelation, but also opened for criticism the presuppositions of classical philosophy. In other words, empiricism argued that nature and history are the only areas open to human inquiry; since religion is beyond the powers of reason, it cannot be investigated. The impact of these ideas on theology was reinforced thirty years later by Kant’s Criticism of Pure Reason. Influenced by Rationalism and Empiricism, Johann Salamo Semler, the father of historical-critical theology, published his Study of the Free Investigation of the Canon in four volumes from 1771 to 1775. His biblical research convinced Semler “that any study of the Bible had to start with the biblical text and its tradition. In doing so he concluded that the biblical books were written by human authors with the language and in the idiom of their specific culture.”14 He rejected verbal inspiration as understood by Lutheran orthodoxy because it was not clearly taught in Scripture itself. “Throughout his writings Semler used the Enlightenment notion of accommodation, according to which the religious truths in the Bible were adjusted to the mental capacities and thought world of a given period and culture.”15 Just as the historical-critical method of interpretation was emerging, biblical studies became independent of Christian dogmatics and developed into

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

169

separate disciplines, meaning that scholars could investigate the Scriptural texts without any obligation to attack or refine doctrine or theology. This allowed them to contribute to Christian teachings for the first time since the Old and New Testaments were written.16 b. Impact on Biblical and Theological Studies Clearly, Schleiermacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s encounter theory eventually resulted from the formulation of the historical-critical method of interpretation. His reinterpretation of revelation-inspiration was motivated by the same set of hermeneutics that resulted in the historical-critical method of intepretation. The historical-critical methodology of exegesis necessarily implies the encounter theory of revelation, and the artistic view of inspiration. As one approaches the Bible through the modern model, then, he or she finds that the nature and extent of what Scripture teaches has been limited, both for biblical and systematic theologies. From the hermeneutical perspective, therefore, the modern model of revelation-inspiration determines the nature and extension of the cognitive ground on which both biblical exegesis and theology operate. The meaning of Scripture is now understood to be historical only in the sense of human history, not in the sense of divine history as both the Old and New Testaments indicate. Scripture testifies to at least two different histories: first, as Spinoza noted, the history of the Scriptural texts themselves; and second, the history of Israel as a nation and culture. These two histories are evident in the biblical text. Yet, historical-critical hermeneutical presuppositions assume that the biblical text is not historically reliable because its authors write to testify of their experience in a divine-human encounter rather to relate factually accurate accounts. Consequently, the historical-critical scholar reads the text with suspicion, treating Scripture as if it were a hostile witness in a trial. In the modern model, the biblical authors wrote of their divine encounters using the terms of their own culture and experience. Therefore, as we would expect, we

HOME PAGE 170

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Figure 2: Modern Interpretation find references to community, but these references contain descriptive flashes of the divine-human encounter embedded in what is ultimately a fictional narrative. Thus, historical-critical methodology attempts to reconstruct the historical events in that narrative. Scholars using this model believe that Biblical writers mixed actual historical happenings with products of their own imagination, creating a mythological narrative. One exegetical consequence of the historical-critical method is its very slim results for the task of theology and Christian teaching. In practice, scholars study the Scripture scientifically only to arrive at scanty results based on bare hypothetical reconstructions of historical events. Since most of the text is the product of human imagination, it cannot be taken as true. What advantages, then, can historical-critical methodology offer Christian theology? Proponents of the historical-critical method point to two: existential experience and theology. By separating the mythology from the facts of Scripture, the historicalcritical method is believed to point to the ultimate spiritual meaning of the Bible, namely, the divine-human existential encounter. Figure 2 depicts this type of exegesis, along with how the historical-critical method assumes the modern

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

171

model of revelation-inspiration. The two ovals on the bottom left represent the human nature of the biblical writer. The inner oval stands for the soul, while the outer oval represents the temporal human body together with its capacity for reason. God’s objective action touches the timeless soul of the prophet in a noncognitive encounter: revelation. In the encounter, the prophet experiences the feeling of absolute dependence; this feeling attaches itself to reason and its objective, cultural forms. The experience is so powerful that the prophet is motivated to express himself in words, oral or written, thus resulting in Scripture. Biblical writings, then, consist basically of myth, metaphor, or narrative. On the lower right-hand side of the diagram is a human being. From him, two arrows point left toward the Bible and the existential encounter motivating the biblical author to write. The shorter and wider arrow labeled “HCM” represents the historical-critical method, in which scholars work at locating the objective, natural, and historical meanings of Scripture. This procedure prepares the Bible reader for the second step, represented by the longer and thinner arrow penetrating into the soul of the prophet, where the encounter between God and the prophet took place. This second arrow shows that the ultimate goal of reading Scripture is to obtain the same existential experience that first motivated the biblical writer to express himself. An example of the historical-critical method’s application to theology is its treatment of the creation account. The method, together with the modern model of inspiration, has provided scholarly justification for dismissing the biblical account of creation and the subsequent metanarrative it supports. In this case, the modern model goes a step beyond the classical one. For instance, even though Augustine did not believe that God took seven days to make the world, he did accept the concept of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) as a revelation from God. In his view, God’s timeless act of creation could only be perceived by people as taking place in time and space, so the Bible writer was inspired to describe a seven-day process.17 Thus, even though Scripture consists of the very words of God, in the classical view, it cannot reflect how God really is and acts, because it is articulated in a temporal sequence. Creation out of nothing, nonetheless, is understood as an eternal truth visible behind the temporal-historical wrapping of the Genesis narrative.

HOME PAGE 172

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Conversely, the modern model of revelation-inspiration considers creation in any view to be a human notion rather than divine communication about the origin of the world. After all, Scripture only reflects the state of human knowledge in the prescientific age in which it was written. Its teachings about origins are wrong and, therefore, of no use for theologians interested in discovering truth. Since God has not spoken on the issue of origins (or on any other issue), we are left to study this and other issues as the biblical authors did, by learning from scholars of our own age. If theologians find they need to talk about the origin of the universe, they are limited to scientific teachings and speculations. Historical-criticism purports to demonstrate, then, that the Bible is a purely human book teaching many easily detectable errors. Consequently, believers cannot depend on biblical writings to supply them with truth about nature or history. If the Bible is mere mythology, there is little or no use for Scripture in the life of the believer or the experience of the community. Since the literal meaning of Scripture has become theologically useless, the Bibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role has to be defined, and a new way of reading it found.

3. The Historicizing of Theology What becomes of theology if one assumes that Scripture does not contain eternal or historical truths? On what grounds would theologians develop their reflections and discourses? All that is left is history, specifically the history of Christianity. Scripture is only a part of that history, and Christianity itself is only a part of greater human history, which encompasses all traditions and religions. In the modern view, then, Christian theology is grounded on tradition. It is not that the other historic sources, such as Scripture, experience, and reason, have disappeared; they only receive their authority from the broader category of tradition. It is the soul of theology, the source of facts and teachings from which we are to develop religious ideas. From Schleiermacher to the present, theology has developed by retrieving material from its own history. This phenomenon is known as the historicizing of theology. Theology is no longer a science of God and his eternal truths, but a reflection on human responses to their encounters with God. God is mute; only humans speak. This historicizing refers only to human history, without any acts of God

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

173

in it. The result of such a theology is irrelevancy to non-Christians and Christians alike. Modern Christian theologians, searching for relevance, have unsurprisingly turned away from metaphysics and biblical studies to focus their efforts on everyday sociological, cultural, psychological, and political issues. In so doing, they relate to Scripture as though it were part of an ideological resource center where they hope to find ideas that may help them to face the challenges of contemporary culture. Traditional theological issues serve only to provide boundaries for the identity of each denomination and their respective guidelines for worship. Truth is left to secular science. As theologians have become aware of the everyday consequences of the modern model, many have seen the practical dangers to which it has led. To help overcome this, some theologians have worked in recent years to help people take the literal understanding of the Bible more seriously, calling it narrative instead of mythology. But they have yet to challenge the hermeneutical presuppositions of the modern model. Only by revisiting the doctrine of revelation-inspiration, revising their presuppositions, and finding an exegetical alternative to the historical-critical method, can Christian theologians heal the wound inflicted by modernity.

§50. EVALUATION 1. Criteria As we evaluate the modern model of revelation-inspiration, let us revisit the criteria we set forth earlier (§39.1). Two of the criteria come directly from Scripture itself – the doctrine of Scripture (what the Bible says about its origin), and the phenomena of Scripture (the characteristics of the Bible as a book). The third criterion, hermeneutical effect, simply asks about the practical consequences of using a given model. We called each of these consistency, coherence, and application respectively. Consistency asks whether the model agrees with how Scripture describes itself. Coherence asks whether the model adequately explains the literary characteristics of Scripture. Application looks at the theological results. The application of the model is its “hermeneutical effect”— how it

HOME PAGE 174

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

functions as a presupposition of the exegetical-theological enterprise. The practical application criterion helps demonstrate both the strong points and shortcomings of a particular model.

2. Consistency and Coherence Is the modern model consistent with what Scripture says about itself? It is based on the ideas of noncognitive encounter and artistic expression, so one does not need much theological ability to detect the inconsistency here. Scripture strongly disagrees with the modern model’s emphasis on the human origin of Scripture; after all, the phrase, “Thus says the Lord,” is repeated in Scripture more than 3,800 times. Next, is the modern model coherent with what we find in the Bible as a literary work? Here the modern model has a decisive advantage over the classical one. If the contents of Scripture are created within history and written down just like other ancient documents, it would explain the human idiosyncrasies of the Bible as a written text – so the modern model would totally account for the phenomena of Scripture. In short, the classical and modern models of revelation-inspiration seem to counterbalance each other’s weaknesses and strengths.

3. Practical Application The primary weakness of the historical-critical method is what happens when it is applied – the hermeneutical effect. It gives no explanation for the origin of theological knowledge. It provides no way to construct theology on cognitive truth in or from God. The idea of encounter may be emotionally appealing, but it has no concrete foundation for the construction of theological ideas. Of course, the model is internally coherent when it says that we do theology for the purpose of worship, to encounter God ourselves, rather than to know him on something other than an emotional level. Yet, how do we know that the prophets encountered God when we read Scripture? When the entire Bible is viewed as myth, narrative, or even as a moving story, it is difficult to imagine how Christianity could claim to be anything more than a sophisticated fraternity. It becomes just another human tradition, with mild claims about an unknowable God. Not many Christian believers subscribing

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

175

to the modern model realize they are building not only their theology, but also their life stories on the quicksand of rapidly shifting cultural trends.

§51. REVIEW • Nature and supernature in the modern model The modern model understands nature and supernature much as does the classical model. The realm of supernature is understood to be timeless, while the world of nature is spatiotemporal. The difference is that in the modern model, human reason is able to understand objects only within the spatiotemporal world – an idea originating with Immanuel Kant. • Prophetic reason works historically. Unlike the classical model, the cognitive capabilities of the biblical authors are not elevated in order to reach their objects for two reasons: reason cannot reach beyond nature and history, and revelation does not involve cognitive truth anyway. Moreover, the prophet’s mind works only within history, using data from time and space to describe his or her religious experiences. • Content of divine revelation: noncognitive encounter An objective contact between God and the biblical authors took place at the existential level of the timeless soul. God revealed himself to human beings within their inner souls, but without cognitive communication. His presence inside them generated an emotive response, objective in its cause (his presence), yet subjective in its responsive nature and content (human feeling). This unique, spiritual feeling, known as absolute dependence, is different from all other emotions because it is caused by a timeless God rather than by anything in the spatiotemporal world. But since it is present within the realm of consciousness, the prophet naturally associates it with the cognitive contents of his or her mind.

HOME PAGE 176

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

• Inspiration is an aesthetic expression of the noncognitive encounter, and draws its contents from the cultural environment of the biblical authors. Biblical writers, as “spiritual artists,” expressed their feelings of absolute dependence with colors of their own cultural knowledge and expression. No knowledge, idea, or information in Scripture comes from the mind of God. • Doxological and missiological goals of scripture Biblical authors did not write to communicate God’s ideas or message to human beings. Instead they wrote, first as an expression of worship to the God of the encounter (doxological), and, second, to tell others of how they experienced God within their souls (missiological). • The Bible is a human document. According to the modern model of revelation-inspiration, the Bible is a human document from beginning to end, not only in form, but also in content. • The modern model of revelation-inspiration requires the historicalcritical method for biblical exegesis, and vice versa. We use the same methodology for studying Scripture that we would use for any other human book. This is known as the “historical-critical method,” and arose during the eighteenth century. Although this methodology originated some thirty years before Schleiermacher thoroughly formulated the modern model of revelation-inspiration, they belong together.

• The modern model of revelation-inspiration, together with the historicalcritical method of exegesis, results in the historicizing of Christian theology. Theology finds its foundation and contents in the dynamics of tradition. Scripture is limited to a place as part of that tradition and the church’s wider historical experience.

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

177

• The modern model is inconsistent with the doctrine of Scripture, but coherent with the phenomena of Scripture. The modern model of revelation-inspiration clearly contradicts the doctrine of Scripture (not to mention the entire classical tradition). On the positive side, due to its historical emphasis, the modern model shows coherence with the human characteristics exhibited by Scripture as a written work. • In practical terms, the modern model of revelation-inspiration leaves theology at the mercy of human change and tradition. Though it better accounts for the human characteristics of Scripture present in its phenomena, the modern model of revelation-inspiration leaves theology without a divine basis for its content. The teachings of theology become completely human and, therefore, subject to the whims of changing human culture. • Scripture contains error not only at the level of historical details, but also in its foundational teachings. If God cannot communicate words and ideas to people, they are left to create them on their own. As a result, the biblical contents reflect only the knowledge available to the authors at the time they wrote. • Scripture as the primary norm for theology is reduced to a resource center of ideas from which to draw in the face of the present existential and social situation. Theologians who subscribe to the modern model of revelation-inspiration and the historical-critical method are not likely to endorse the Protestant sola Scriptura principle. They are more inclined to speak of Scripture as the first among many theological sources – prima Scriptura. In practice, this means that theologians begin with present ethical, social or political problems, and look to Scripture for themes, symbols or events from which they can draw as resources for those problems. Prima Scriptura means that Scripture is no longer a privileged source of cognitive revelation from which all other sources are to be judged and interpreted.

HOME PAGE 178

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

ENDNOTES 1

Friedrich Schleiermacher, Speeches On Religion: Addresses in Response to Its Cultured Critics, trans. Terrence N. Tice (Richmond, VA: Knox Press, 1969). 2

Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, trans. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928). 3

After Schleiermacher, criticism of the classical view of God has grown considerably. Notably, what is known as process theology has criticized the timeless view of God because it does not leave room for human freedom or any real interaction between God and people. However, process theology ends up arguing that God is both timeless and temporal. Even within process theology, classical Greek philosophy continues to shape theology’s hermeneutical principles. 4

Read Schleiermacher’s account of the resurrection (The Christian Faith, §161). It seems clear that he leaned toward a wholistic view of the human nature, without actually eliminating the classical dichotomy between soul and body. 5

Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, §4.4.

José Ferrater Mora, Diccionario de Filosofía, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana, 1965), 1:329. 7

Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, sv. “condition.”

Ibid.

John Cassian, The Conferences, 2:8.

Summa Theologica I.1.10.

R. A. Muller, “Biblical Interpretation in the 16th & 17th Centuries,” in Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 129. 12

Baruch Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise (New York: Dover, 1951). 13

Ibid., 120.

HOME PAGE THE MODERN MODEL

179

J. A. Dearman, “Semler, Johann Salomo (1725-1791),” in Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 356. 15

Ibid., 357.

Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 20-21. 17

Augustine writes, “And I looked attentively to find whether seven or eight times Thou sawest that Thy works were good, when they were pleasing unto Thee; but in Thy seeing I found no times by which I might understand that thou sawest so often what Thou madest. And I said, ‘O Lord,! is not this Thy Scripture true, since Thou art true, and being Truth hast set it forth? Why, then, dost Thou say unto me that in thy seeing there are no times, while this Thy Scripture telleth me that what Thou madest each day, Thou sawest to be good; and when I counted them I found how often?’ Unto these things Thou repliest unto me, for Thou art my God, and with strong voice tellest unto Thy servant in his inner ear, bursting through my deafness, and crying, ‘O man, that which My Scripture saith, I say; and yet doth that speak in time; but time has no reference to My Word, because My Word existeth in equal eternity with Myself. Thus those things which ye see through My Spirit, I see, just as those things which ye speak through My Spirit, I speak. And so when ye see those things in time, I see them not in time; as when ye speak them in time, I speak them not in time.’” (Confessions, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J.G. Pilkington, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 [Albany: Ages Software, 1996], XIII, 29, emphasis mine). Regarding God’s act of creation, after some reflection on the meaning of time, Augustine concludes, “As, then, Thou in the Beginning knewest the heaven and the earth without any change of Thy knowledge, so in the Beginning didst Thou make heaven and earth without any distraction of Thy action?[sic]” (ibid., XI. 31).

HOME PAGE

11. THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

Modernism shook the very foundations of classical Christianity. Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations differed in their reactions to it, due partly to the structure and content of their respective theologies. A group of American Protestant denominations, now known as “fundamentalist” or “evangelical,” strongly opposed modernism’s approach to revelation-inspiration in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Before we examine their experience, we will look at how Roman Catholicism and Protestantism each reacted to modernity. Once this is complete, we will have the context for understanding the rest of this chapter.

§52. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND After much hesitation, Roman Catholicism has come to accept many of the teachings of modernism it initially condemned. Prominent among these ideas are evolution and the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation. Protestant reaction has been sharply divided. Whereas mainline denominations have followed the example of Roman Catholicism, fundamentalist and evangelical churches denounce modern teachings as contradictory to their traditions,

HOME PAGE 182

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

especially those of creation and the inerrancy of Scripture. This chapter focuses on the latter – the evangelical view of revelation-inspiration.

1. Roman Catholicism and Modernism In 1870 the first Vatican council reaffirmed the classical views of revelation and inspiration.1 In 1907, Pope Pius X condemned the errors of modern theologians, including their understanding of scripture, in his decree Lamentabili Sane, “The Syllabus of Errors.” Due mostly to these official condemnations, Roman Catholic theology and teaching adhered to the classical view until Vatican II in the 1960s. In the meantime, however, several controversial thinkers were publishing ideas that departed from the official path. One such scholar was Pierre Theilhard de Chardin, who espoused the theory of evolution and applied it to the development of theology. At the time, Chardin was both heralded as a prophet and denounced as a heretic. However, following Pope John XXIII’s encouragement of aggiornamento (“bringing up to date”), Roman Catholic scientists and theologians found themselves free to explore evolutionary ideas. On October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, implicitly endorsed the theory of evolution, modified for compatibility with Roman Catholic teaching. The same process happened with biblical interpretation. Today, Roman Catholic theologians freely use the historical-critical method to study the historical aspects of Scripture. How could Roman Catholic thinkers make such an about face within only a few decades? For conservative, non-Catholic Christians it seems like not only a serious change in belief, but a theoretical contradiction and doctrinal inconsistency. Roman Catholics readily concede that the church’s position has changed, but strongly deny that such a change implies inconsistency with traditional Roman Catholic theology. They are able to maintain this position accurately, even as they contradict past official pronouncements, because their theology is guided by the classical two-tiers view of reality:

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

183

timeless supernature, temporal nature. Doctrinal teachings flowing from tradition and the office of the papacy find their ultimate source in this ancient Greek framework of reality (see §29 and 36.1).2 Change occurs at the natural, spatiotemporal level where doctrine is formulated, so it must be recognized by the church; change does not occur at the supernatural, timeless level of “mystery,” so any apparent changes in doctrine have ultimately affected nothing. In other words, the changing expressions of dogma have an anchor in unchanging supernature, a point that can only be reached when natural reason is supernaturally bolstered by faith. In practical terms, the highest level of faith (improved rational capabilities) is conferred by ordination upon the Catholic clergy. John Paul II’s recognition of the theory of evolution appears to contradict the traditional biblical teaching of creation. However, that endorsement took place at the spatiotemporal level of nature, where change is acceptable according to Roman Catholic philosophical presuppositions. Because evolution is supposed to have happened at the spatiotemporal level, it neither replaces nor challenges the traditional view of creation, which is supposed to have happened at the timeless level of mystery. Thus John Paul II could state that the theories of evolution asserting that the mind emerges “from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.”3 The separation of nature and supernature allows Roman Catholicism to move from classical exegetical methodology to the historical-critical method. By definition, the historical-critical method works at the spatiotemporal level and cannot interfere with the timeless spiritual realities of religion. Historical-criticism is incapable of altering the central spiritual tenet of Christianity: God and his promise of salvation.

2. Evangelicals and Modernism Mainline Protestant scholarship recognized and adopted the same philosophical principles on which traditional Roman Catholic theology was built. Hence many Protestant theologians warmly accepted both the theory of evolution and the historical-critical method, thereby encouraging

HOME PAGE 184

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Protestants to embrace modernism and causing further division across denominational lines. The modern model of revelation-inspiration and its historical-critical application was bound to reach local congregations. Theologians wrote books that were read by teachers, who in turn prepared pastors to nurture the flock of believers and nonbelievers. Once the modern ideas reached everyday church members, their impact could not have been more dramatic. The centuries-old veneration of Scripture and doctrine was replaced among believers with criticism and rejection. Both the Bible and Christian doctrine began to be vastly reinterpreted. From the 1880s to the present, the adherents of the modern and classical models have found themselves in a war over theology, the conservatives hanging on to traditional theology in the classical mold, the liberals arguing for completely new views. Initially, the conflict arose in the aftermath of the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. While a small number of scientists had questioned creation for some decades before this, no one had articulated an alternative to creation so well. As more people became convinced that the theory of evolution better explained the origin of life than did creation, theologians began to realize that the credibility of Scripture was in jeopardy. As they searched for answers to the challenge, some held to scriptural teachings, while others reinterpreted them to fit the new scientific framework. The debate has never receded. Evolution questioned the truthfulness of Scripture on the creation account, and by extension the rest of its teachings. George Marsden describes the conflict of the last two decades of the nineteenth century in poignant terms: “Whether in South or North, the larger issue was the truth of the Bible. The authority for their whole belief system seemed to rest on this foundation. If the Bible were not true, then on what did Protestantism, the religion of scriptura sola [sic], rest? And what if there were scientific and historical errors in Scripture? Would not such flaws call into question other biblical claims? With both Darwinists and highly sophisticated higher critics suggesting that there were serious errors in Scripture, many of the faithful of the turn-of-the-century generation had to be deeply disturbed.”4

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

185

The conservative stand against the modern view of Scripture drew strength from the classical model of revelation-inspiration and its necessary implication of inerrancy (§37.1.c). Presbyterian theologians of the Old Princeton school, notably, Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, championed this reaction to modernism. This school of thought carefully defined the church’s traditional stance regarding the Bible. “The text as originally inspired by the Holy Spirit, they insisted, was ‘absolutely errorless.’This doctrine of ‘inerrancy,’as it came to be known, was no invention of the late nineteenth century. Many Christians in the past had said or assumed much the same thing. But the fact that now some conservative Protestants were making biblical inerrancy a central doctrine, even sometimes a virtual test of faith, signaled the degree to which the new scientific and historical threats to the Bible were forcing everyone to shore up whatever he or she considered the most critical line of defense.”5 Inerrancy began to be used within the context of Christian apologetics against the opinions of other believers, and became the center of gravity for the Protestant opponents of modernism— the fundamentalists. James Barr describes their view as tying the doctrinal and practical authority of Scripture “to its infallibility and in particular its historical inerrancy.”6 This perspective on Scripture has persisted throughout the twentieth century to the present day, as evangelicals and fundamentalists defend inerrancy and its prerequisite, verbal inspiration. In summary, the challenge of modernity had provoked Protestant Christianity into emphasizing Scripture’s inerrancy as a means of defending the faith; this emphasis on apologetics permeated the development of what would become the evangelical model.. The idea that the Bible could contain error was a foul spirit that needed exorcizing from the church – and the fundamentalists brought out a version of the classical model of revelationinspiration to do it. The aspects of that model they emphasized led to the primacy of inspiration over revelation. The “evangelical” model of revelation-inspiration came to prominence via apologetics which, in turn, permeated the formulation of the model. At this point, we must note that what we are calling the evangelical model in this

HOME PAGE 186

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

chapter differs from the classical model (Chapter 8) only in selection and emphasis. In other words, the evangelical model is a Protestant version of the classical model, born out of the conflict with the modern model. Because the classical and evangelical models are so similar, to describe the latter in detail here would prove to be needless repetition. Instead, in this chapter we will explore the emphases of the evangelical model that give it its distinct flavor.

§53. PRESUPPOSITIONS Protestant theologians never seriously challenged the philosophical presuppositions of the classical model. Instead, they held onto the tenets of Greek philosophy that had come to the church primarily through Augustine, denouncing it only when it appeared to contradict the Pauline-Lutheran definition of the gospel as understood by evangelicals. So classical philosophy continued to influence evangelical doctrine surreptitiously, including revelation-inspiration. Having accepted the classical model without much question, evangelical theologians added two typically Protestant modifications to the classical structure: the sovereignty of God and the total depravity of human nature. These modifications play a decisive role in the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration.

1. The Sovereignty of God Roman Catholicism approached the doctrine of God with a focus on His essence; Protestant theology concentrated instead on his will. It was a matter of emphasis; Roman Catholicism did not ignore the will of God, nor did Protestantism ignore his essence. The distinction rests on how each tradition understood God’s activity. Generally speaking, Roman Catholicism thinks of God’s activity in intellectual terms, while Protestantism views it through the lens of God’s choice to freely justify the sinner. The former emphasizes God’s nature; the latter, the will of God. How does the decisive role of God’s will function in Protestant theology?

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

187

As the basic characteristic of God’s being is timelessness, so the basic characteristic of God’s will is sovereignty. Since God’s activity covers not only the gospel but also the inspiration of Scripture, we must ask how the sovereignty of God affects the Holy Spirit’s role in the inspiration of Scripture. The idea of God’s sovereignty was not invented by evangelical theologians, or even by Luther or Calvin during the Reformation. Instead, it developed within the writings of Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century. Although Augustine did not use the word “sovereignty” frequently, he explicitly defined it as an idea and wove it into his understanding of salvation. Augustine’s interpretation of predestination, election, grace, the cross, justification, and sanctification are all grounded on divine sovereignty; his theology could not operate without it. God’s will is sovereign; it is the source from which salvation flows. Predestination, election, grace, the cross, justification, and sanctification are all acts of God, willed by God. Revelation and inspiration are also acts of God that flow from His will. God’s will is sovereign in the sense that it overpowers and determines the will of man.7 God’s will is absolute. Nothing falls outside of its reach because God’s will is causative: whatever He wills, is. Taken to its logical conclusion, this idea of sovereignty implies that God is the cause of evil. Augustine expressly denied this, attributing the “willing of evil” to the free will of humanity. But even after accepting this premise, Augustine affirmed that the content of the human evil act is controlled by the will of God.8 Thus, humans are free to choose sin and then experience what God has determined as a result of their choice; in other words, they have the ability to move to the general area of unrighteousness. But even then, God determines what they do. Where does the concept of sovereignty come from? Augustine believed it to be biblical. Indeed, Scripture indisputably speaks of the role of God’s will in salvation and history. Moreover, it states that God makes some decisions concerning humanity in which we have no say, for example, the election of ancient Israel as His people. But Augustine’s idea that God directly or indirectly controls all the events of history, including decisions of the human will, is not biblical. It is based

HOME PAGE 188

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

instead on his hermeneutical presuppositions. Augustine thought that the will of God is equal to His being. Since he believed that God is timeless, God’s will would also be timeless. Fortunately, he wrote of it explicitly: Will you say that these things are false, which, with a strong voice, Truth tells me in my inner ear, concerning the very eternity of the Creator, that His substance is in no wise changed by time, nor that His will is separate from His substance? Wherefore, He willeth not one thing now, another anon, but once and for ever He willeth all things that He willeth; not again and again, nor now this, now that; nor willeth afterwards what He willeth not before, nor willeth not what before He willed. Because such a will is mutable and no mutable thing is eternal; but our God is eternal. Likewise He tells me, tells me in my inner ear, that the expectation of future things is turned to sight when they have come; and this same sight is turned to memory when they have passed. Moreover, all thought which is thus varied is mutable, and nothing mutable is eternal; but our God is eternal. These things I sum up and put together, and I find that my God, the eternal God, hath not made any creature by any new will, nor that His knowledge suffereth anything transitory.9

Augustine reveals many things about his thinking here, but it is very clear that in his view, God cannot do things that are new to Him. Everything in his sight exists and nothing changes. We, however, experience events not timelessly as God does, but temporally. Scripture presents God as if He were doing new things in history or in our lives only to accommodate our temporal experience. Human history, then, is predetermined to the most minute detail by the nature and will of God.10 Since God is timeless, He cannot change anything. Therefore, if God cannot change anything, how could mere human beings cause anything out of our own initiative? God’s will and his actions are by definition irresistible. Sovereignty so described affects every other theological construct. Be it justification, grace, predestination, election, sanctification, or the second coming of Christ, all doctrines and biblical ideas without exception are transformed by this view of God’s will. This includes revelation-inspiration. The Reformers had depended on Augustine for help as they challenged the Roman Catholic theology of salvation by works. In so doing, they

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

189

inadvertently subscribed to the philosophical hermeneutics behind his understanding of divine sovereignty. Three centuries later, when American evangelical theologians faced the challenge of modernity, they too based much of their position on the Augustinian notion of divine sovereignty and its hidden philosophical presuppositions.

2. Human Nature: Total Depravity The other presupposition of the evangelical model is its view of human nature. On the basis of the classical view that the soul and its capacity for reason are timeless, found in Augustine’s writings, Protestant Reformers emphasized that human beings after the fall cannot do good at all. The image of God was totally erased from human nature, so people of themselves can only sin. Goodness and truth are only the result of God’s activity in predestination and grace, the outcome of God’s sovereign will. Adam’s sin totally corrupted human nature, not only the will but reason as well.11 All natural faculties were defaced and all supernatural gifts lost. In Calvin’s words, “To will is of man; to will ill, of a corrupt nature; to will well, of grace.”12 Human will apart from God’s irresistible grace can contribute only error, sin, and further corruption. These two ideas did much to ground the Reformers’challenge to the Roman Catholic teaching of salvation through meritorious works. On one hand, human beings after the fall can choose no good, not even to have faith in God. They can only sin. On the other hand, divine sovereignty is the only source of anything good in humans both before and after the fall. Undoubtedly, this strategy goes far to dismantle the claim that salvation somehow requires meritorious works. On the basis of these two hermeneutical presuppositions, any goodness that we may observe in human beings in or out of the Christian community must be directly accredited to God, not to the will or goodness of humans. No one has any reason to boast of his or her goodness. One might well argue that this view of salvation disregards the historical nature of reality and several passages of divinely-revealed Scripture. Its logic and ground come from extrabiblical philosophies that, as we will see later, have been challenged and discarded by postmodernity. But the Protestant

HOME PAGE 190

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

assumptions of divine sovereignty and human depravity have also conditioned the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration.

§54. REVELATION Evangelical theologians use the classical model of revelation-inspiration to combat the modern notion of a Bible created by men and containing error. But the classical view of revelation recognizes the obvious fact that not all of Scripture is the product of supernatural intervention by God. Large sections instead can be attributed to the familiar process of everyday research. How can one affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and still recognize that not all of Scripture is revealed? Since the evangelical intent is to defend the Bible as a whole, its proponents emphasize inspiration over revelation. However, they do not disregard or ignore revelation, but instead use it to introduce inspiration. Why? The process of writing is the central issue to affirming inerrancy. A prophet may have received a perfect revelation from God, but it does his reader no good if he makes a mistake writing it down. Benjamin Warfield, a notable representative of the evangelical model, writes that inspiration as the act of writing is the culmination of a process beginning with revelation. Warfield recognizes three patterns in which the biblical writers obtained their information and ideas: external manifestation, or theophany; internal suggestion, or prophecy; and providential-concursive operation. 13 Theophany and prophecy are clearly supernatural communications; concursive operation covers everything else, or all the biblical writings which could be said to come from natural sources, such as psalms, epistles, and history.

1. Theophany A theophany is the appearance of God’s real presence in space and time. In Warfield’s view, God enters man’s everyday life “in a purely supernatural manner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In these communications we are given accordingly just a series of ‘naked messages

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

191

of God.’”14 In the theophanic pattern, communication consists primarily of audible words. Revelation by theophany covers a very limited portion of the biblical text.

2. Prophecy The prophetic pattern of revelation involves visions and dreams in which visual and audible communications take place. Warfield writes: That which gives to prophecy as a mode of revelation its place in the category of visions strictly so called, and dreams, is that it shares with them the distinguishing characteristic which determines the class. In them all alike the movements of the mind are determined by something extraneous to the subject’s will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernaturally given dreams and visions, extraneous to the totality of the subject’s own psychoses. A power not of himself takes possession of his consciousness and determines it according to its will.15

After a list of biblical references to prophets and prophecy, he asserts that the prophets “were under the divine control. This control is represented as complete and compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the ‘mover,’but the ‘moved’in the formation of his message.”16 For Warfield, passivity does not mean inactivity, because “reception itself is a kind of activity.” The prophets’“intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announcing of their messages [active], contributing nothing to them [passive] but presenting fit instruments for the communication of them.”17 Notice how Warfield ties the prophetic pattern of revelation to the Augustinian-Calvinist belief in divine sovereignty. This is necessary for two reasons. First, Warfield believes divine sovereignty to be the true interpretation of the way God wills and acts; and two, it helps to secure the inerrancy of Scripture— the goal of the model. Less conspicuous in Warfield’s view is the role of the total corruption of human nature. This corruption is implicit in the emphasis on the passivity of the human writer. Obviously, any contribution stemming from human nature would distort the contents of divine communication. Overall, the prophetic pattern covers a

HOME PAGE 192

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

larger portion of the Bible than the theophanic one.

3. Providential-Concursive Revelation The extensive portions of Scripture that his first two patterns of revelation do not cover (the psalms, epistles, and history) Warfield places under what he calls the “concursive” operation of the Holy Spirit. Peter van Bemmelen has correctly observed that what Warfield describes as “concursive” operation “seems to be very similar to what he elsewhere describes as inspiration.”18 Since those areas of the Bible generated by the concursive operation of the Holy Spirit fall within the reach of inspiration as much as the portions derived from theophany and prophecy, we will discuss it in the section on inspiration. In any case, his ideas of providence and concursive operation help him explain the long process of creating Scripture, a process crowned by the event of inspiration. We must remember that revelation in the technical sense refers to how a biblical writer obtains his ideas before he writes them down. The evangelical model accepts that many Bible writers drew their material from ordinary sources. This implicitly opens the door for a Scripture with mistakes in it. Obviously, the Bible must be safeguarded at the point of inspiration. According to the evangelical model, by taking control of the process of writing, God’s inspiration sifts away any possible error, and protects the Bible’s inerrancy. To strengthen the evangelical position, Hodge and Warfield introduce divine providence into the revelation process long before the writing is said to take place. In their view, God providentially prepared each biblical author “so that he, and he alone, could, and freely would, produce his allotted part.”19 In other words, God’s providence prepared the subject of revelation so that he would choose what God wanted him to choose, and would therefore select only that which God wanted to include in Scripture. But to Warfield, this process of preparation was not limited to the biblical writers. God’s sovereign providence also selected the subject matter of Scripture. He explains that divine inspiration is “superinduced upon a long series of processes, providential, gracious, miraculous, by which the matter of Scripture had been prepared for writing, and the men for writing it.”20

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

193

Clearly, according to the evangelical model, God through his sovereign providence shapes both the prophet and the content of Scripture, which is revealed not only by theophany and prophecy, but also by divine providence selecting other material. The application of divine sovereignty to the shaping of both the prophet and the cognitive material of Scripture is rooted in the conviction that an immutable God always acts in the same way. After describing the providential preparation of the prophet, Warfield explains that “the mode of operation of this Divine activity [inspiration] moving to this result [divinehuman nature of Scripture] is conceived, in full accord with the analogy of the Divine operations in other spheres of its activity, in providence and in grace alike, as confluent with the human activities operative in the case; as, in a word, of the nature of what has come to be known as ‘immanent action.’”21 By calling on God’s sovereign providence to explain the nature of revelation and inspiration, the evangelical model does not eliminate the role of the human agency or its freedom. Hodges and Warfield clearly state that the divine superintendence of the process of revelation and inspiration “interfered with no spontaneous natural agencies, which were, in themselves, producing results conformable to the mind of the Holy Spirit.”22 God’s sovereign control is not experienced by the human agent as interference with the free operation of his or her mental capabilities. Although the divine action allows the free operation of the human agency, its results are not attributed to the human, but to the divine action. By overriding the human agency as a cause of Scripture, the evangelical model compensates for the total depravity of human nature. In other words, by combining divine superintendence with divine-human concurrence, the evangelical model claims to allow for the humanity of Scripture while at the same time safeguarding its divine quality and inerrancy. The pattern of revelation that results from linking divine revelation with sovereign providence is apparently similar to, but more dynamic than, the Aristotelian two-causes pattern. It maximizes the divine contribution to the contents of Scripture, while minimizing human contribution even when that

HOME PAGE 194

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

contribution is more than the pen the human writer uses when he or she acts as primary cause. However, the concept of divine, sovereign providence is more dynamic and closer to Scripture than that of first cause in the classical model. Here the primary cause is God’s providence, while the secondary cause is the fully human activity of the biblical writer. In so arguing the evangelical model is more dynamic than the classical view and closer to Scripture. In this pattern, the divine agency works in concurrence with the human agency. This brings up again the idea of concurrence-confluence, which we will discuss below.

§55. INSPIRATION We have defined inspiration as the process through which the information revealed to the biblical writer is put into words. In this process, two agencies— one divine, the other human— interact in the production of the scriptural text. The doctrine of inspiration is the explanation or interpretation of this interaction. How inspiration is understood depends on each model’s presuppositions about divine and human nature. In the evangelical model, God is presupposed to have a timeless nature and a sovereign, irresistible will, while human beings each possess a timeless soul, whose supernatural capacities are lost and natural abilities totally corrupted. In the following sections, we will explore how the evangelical model interprets the nature, extent, and pattern of inspiration.

1. Nature: Verbal a. Verbal Inspiration In the sixteenth century, the verbal nature of inspiration was prevalent in

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

195

Roman Catholic circles. At the time it was also assumed by Protestant Reformers, who had larger issues to discuss. Proponents of verbal inspiration teach that as the biblical writer records what has been revealed, the Holy Spirit is involved at the level of the words themselves. Whatever our view of inspiration may be, we must recognize that the idea of verbal inspiration stands in harmony with the claims of Scripture (cf. §19.2). But how the Holy Spirit was involved in selecting the words of the Bible is open to interpretation. As we consider the possible pattern the Holy Spirit followed, we reach the distinctive core of the evangelical model of inspiration. How God acted through inspiration stands at the center of the model; in that process the hermeneutical presuppositions assumed by the evangelical model also begin to act. b. Thought Inspiration Before we move to our next section, we must note that the evangelical reinterpretation of the classical view of verbal inspiration is not the only one taken by all theologians known by the evangelical label. This issue has been discussed at length by classical theologians. One significant alternative to the verbal view is “thought” inspiration, an idea accepted by conservative Protestant thinkers who are not satisfied with the assumed rigidity of the verbal understanding. Thought inspiration asserts that in the process of writing Scripture the Holy Spirit’s influence reached the level of thought, while the words were up to the human agent. Put another way, the Holy Spirit provided the thoughts, but not the words of the Bible. This seems to allow for greater human contribution and less divine control. How significant this is to the discussion of inspiration depends on how it is understood. Not surprisingly, proponents of thought inspiration fail to agree on what “thought” specifically involves. In the nineteenth century, Franzelin argued that the Holy Spirit inspired each thought behind every word of Scripture, even those thoughts that were otherwise naturally obtained. The writer’s task was limited to writing the inspired ideas with words and literary forms.23 The difference between his view and verbal

HOME PAGE 196

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

inspiration is effectively negligible; inerrancy is still expected. In contrast, the classical school identifies the thoughts provided by the Spirit with the timeless truths that God reveals. Here the problem is greater because God reveals few truths. To them, biblical authors covered broad, timeless thoughts about salvation with their own words and literary forms. Consequently, the action of the Holy Spirit in the production of the words of Scripture is seriously curtailed, so inerrancy becomes difficult to maintain. This version of thought inspiration is known as “dynamic inspiration.”24 In thought inspiration, God’s activity stops at the level of ideas in the Bible writer’s mind, thereby introducing a “hermeneutical flexibility.” Many contemporary supporters of thought inspiration are attracted to it precisely because it allows them a certain latitude for interpretation. Since the thought and not the words are inspired (and therefore authoritative), the interpreter looks for the thought or meaning behind and beyond the words. The problem is that in practice, when the literal meaning of the words is bypassed in search of an authoritative thought, interpreters tend to leave the realm of objectivity to wander in the wonderland of their imagination. Frequently, supporters of this view claim that the Holy Spirit’s illumination in the mind of the believing reader guarantees genuine knowledge of the thoughts behind the words. But when thought inspiration is understood like this, its practical effect is very similar to that of the modern model. While the classical model spoke of thought revelation, this variant of the evangelical model spoke of thought inspiration. The difference is significant. The classical view taught that God not only originated the thought of the prophet, but also inspired all of Scripture through the Holy Spirit. In the thought inspiration version of the evangelical model, revelation is collapsed into inspiration, reducing divine intervention to a few points in Scripture that are either supernatural in origin or speak directly to the salvific issues assumed to be the aim of revelation. The mainline evangelical model emphasizes the verbal nature of inspiration precisely to avoid the imprecision and imagination of thought inspiration that would jeopardize Scripture’s inerrancy. It also emphasizes plenary inspiration to avoid any assumption that large areas of Scripture may

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

197

contain any kind of error. What does plenary mean?

2. Extension: Plenary As a theological issue, the extension of inspiration asks how much of Scripture we should regard as inspired. There are two options: “partial” inspiration or “plenary”inspiration. In other words, inspiration covers portions of the Bible, or every word of the whole book. Whether a theologian chooses partial or plenary inspiration depends largely on whether he or she emphasizes revelation or inspiration when considering Scripture’s origin. Writers leaning on the side of revelation tend to prefer partial inspiration; likewise, those who emphasize inspiration usually favor the plenary view. While those who favor the classical model still contend over the role of inspiration, proponents of the evangelical model boldly subscribe to plenary inspiration: every word of Scripture is inspired. a. Partial Inspiration Since not all Scripture depicts revelation as supernatural knowledge (the overall Roman Catholic emphasis) or salvation (the Protestant emphasis), some authors call for limited rather than plenary inspiration. For instance, John Henry Newman wrote that inspiration extends to issues of faith and moral conduct only, thereby leaving sizable portions of Scripture outside inspiration.25 Dutch Reformed theologian G. C. Berkouwer believed that the content of Scripture was not inspired truth, although its intention to communicate salvation was.26 According to these theologians, only the ethical, spiritual and salvific portions of Scripture are inspired. Partial inspiration is not consistent with the evangelical belief in inerrancy as expressed in the 1978 Chicago Statement on Scripture, which was “signed by nearly 300 evangelical scholars, representing almost every major evangelical organization in the United States and several foreign countries.”27 The affirmation of partial inspiration allows for a great variety of positions. Although it implies that large portions of Scripture contain error,

HOME PAGE 198

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

theologians differ widely on the definition of what that error might be. Some believe that errors occur only at the level of small details; others assert that error could include clear and significant teachings, such as the seven literal days of creation. At the practical level, the controversy between partial and plenary inspiration is based on the conflict between biblical statements and the teachings of modern science. By proposing a dichotomy between the spiritual-ethical-salvific realm of religious experience and the concrete, spatiotemporal world of science, proponents of partial inspiration preempt any conflict between theology and science. They are able to believe in evolution and in justification by faith in the cross simultaneously, yet without contradiction. A correct understanding of the world’s origin belongs to science, while the understanding and experience of salvation are the property of theology. In stark contrast, supporters of plenary inspiration assert that Scripture speaks factually on issues also covered by science— thus continuing the conflict between science and faith. b. Plenary Inspiration To believe in plenary inspiration is to believe that the Holy Spirit is directly responsible for all the content of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Inspiration in this view guarantees the truthfulness of Scripture on any issue, spiritual or mundane. This is the meaning of inerrancy as a challenge to the modern notion of inspiration as merely aesthetic. The evangelical counterattack on the teachings of modern theology leads to a belief in inerrancy, which is dependent on plenary inspiration. But it is not enough merely to affirm plenary inspiration. We must ask how the Holy Spirit acted in the process of inspiration. We know what the writers did— they wrote. What specifically did the Holy Spirit do?

3. Pattern of Operation: Superintendence with Concursive Confluence By pattern of operation, we refer to how the divine and human agencies interacted in the writing of Scripture. Theologians frequently label this the

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

199

“means of inspiration.” This is the heart of the evangelical model, where the ground for inerrancy is laid. Here we find that the evangelical model is a restatement, intensification, and adaptation of the classical model, but with its own hermeneutical presuppositions and apologetical goal. There are only a few patterns explaining the mode of divine operation on the biblical writers: the Aristotelian two-causes theory (Chapter 8, §37.1); dictation; providence; and concursive, confluent divine-human action. Keep in mind that these patterns do not attempt to explain in detail the type of divine action involved in concretely inspiring each author and book of Scripture. That is correctly considered to be as mysterious as the being of the Godhead.28 These patterns are only rough descriptions of the phenomenon; they were created to describe the nature of the Bible so that it could be satisfactorily interpreted. a. Dictation Dictation in the context of inspiration means that God chose the contents of Scripture word by word. It originated in the period of classical theology. For example, Calvin described the Bible’s origin in terms of dictation.29 However, though he affirmed Scripture’s authority, what he wrote is insufficient to determine exactly what he believed about how it was written. In fact, most writers who favor the dictation pattern do not attempt to describe how it actually operates. Dictation is usually described as either mechanical or verbal. Much as in the two-causes theory, in mechanical dictation the prophets function as “organs” of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit seems to act on the biblical author in a manner similar to the contemporary phenomenon of spiritual “channeling” in New Age writings.30 Verbal dictation, on the other hand, pictures the Holy Spirit ordering the words of Scripture to the prophet much as a businessman might dictate a letter to his secretary. In either mechanical or verbal dictation, the results are ultimately the same. Believers from either position are classified by Geisler and Nix as fundamentalists.31 Note how the dictation pattern theoretically allows for human influence on the style, composition, history and culture that we actually find in the Bible.32 It is important to note that the evangelical model of inspiration

HOME PAGE 200

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

does not adopt this pattern to explain the mode of operation of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture.33 b. Divine Superintendence and Its Concursive Confluence with the Human Agent The evangelical model depends on the belief that Scripture is the result of the superintendence – the constant, direct supervision – of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the writers, and as a consequence an intrinsic quality of the the biblical words. This divine superintendence takes place through a concursive confluence–that is, a simultaneous flowing together–with the human agent, whose freedom is not curtailed in any way. The result is that the Holy Spirit passes inerrancy on and into the original text of Scripture. In this section, we will explore this view with the help of Archibald A. Hodge, Benjamin B. Warfield, and Millard Erickson. But before we continue, we might ask why we need a special divine intervention at the moment of writing if, through the process of revelation, God’s sovereignty is able to produce a inerrant Scripture. Warfield thought that this question was unavoidable: When we give due place in our thoughts to the universality of the providential government of God, to the minuteness and completeness of its sway, and to its invariable efficacy, we may be inclined to ask what is needed beyond this mere providential government to secure the production of sacred books which should be in every detail absolutely accordant with the Divine will. The answer is, Nothing is needed beyond mere providence to secure such books.34

If God’s divine providence alone can produce an inerrant book, why does he need the process of inspiration at all? Warfield explains that inspiration is necessary to confer on Scripture “a divine quality unattainable by human powers alone.”35 Why do the words of Scripture have to have a divine quality? Warfield answers this question by pointing to the twofold value of inspiration. First, it makes Scripture authoritative and trustworthy at a superhuman level; second, it allows Scripture to speak its “divine word immediately to each reader’s heart and conscience.”36 Warfield’s first value of inspiration consists in making sure there is no

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

201

room for error both in the generation of biblical words and in their interpretation. By claiming God sovereignty operates supernaturally in the generation of the words and in the process by which the believer understands them, Warfield’s model proposes that divine inspiration overrules both the cognitive initiative of biblical writers and the hermeneutical freedom of biblical readers. In this model, inspiration produces the words, but also overules the free procees by which believers understand the words. In my opinion, this double role of inspiration overstates the apologetical goal of the model. Regarding the second value, Warfield implicitly subscribes to a sacramental view of Scripture. The word “sacrament” here is a technical term for the invisible presence of the divine in a spatiotemporal object. The host in Roman Catholic theology is a clear example. After the priest blesses the bread, it becomes a sacrament because it has changed its essence— its invisible central nature— from bread to the crucified Christ. Externally the bread still is bread, but its unseen essence is divine. We might say that the classical sacramental theology is very close to Warfield’s idea of divinehuman confluence in revelation-inspiration. His statements seem to indicate that providential revelation grounds the inerrancy of Scripture, while inspiration goes beyond inerrancy by transforming Scripture into a sacrament— because of the presence of the Holy Spirit speaking from the text. Hodge and Warfield define inspiration as “the superintendence by God of the writers in the entire process of their writing, which accounts for nothing whatever but the absolute infallibility of the record in which the revelation, once generated, appears in the original autograph.”37 Even though they affirm that the essence of inspiration is divine “superintendence” rather than mere “influence,”38 Warfield tends to use the terms interchangeably in his later discussions of inspiration.39 For our purpose – understanding the model – we will consider the two words synonyms. Inspiration as superintendenceinfluence describes God as producing the text of Scripture in confluence with the human writers. Superintendence and influence, as we have noted, are technical terms for the type of divine activity present in the writing of

HOME PAGE 202

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Scripture, within the evangelical model. The divine and human agencies worked in a relationship of confluence to create the Bible. The mode of divine operation in inspiration is clearly a mystery just as are other divine activities elsewhere in theology. Imprecise as the terms “superintendence,” “influence,” and “confluence” are, they at least give us some idea of what the evangelical model proposes took place in inspiration. Superintendence depends on the sovereign will of God as its presupposition and points forward to the natural consequence of that will— the provident, irresistible government God exercises over his entire creation. Influence indicates that the divine operation is an internal one, which in turn serves as a reminder that inspiration is an activity of God’s immanence. With the exception of a few theophanies and the incarnation of Christ, God acts internally rather than externally, just as we do in our historical environment. Therefore, we may compare divine influence to a supernatural energy moving within the human authors. Again, this is exactly the same way God operates in the sacraments, salvation and providence, at least in the classical and evangelical views. In short, God acted in inspiration through his immanent guidance or energy–influence– and thereby totally controlled the outcome of human writing. Confluence describes the interaction between divine and human activity. The idea of confluence differs from mechanical dictation in that the latter does not allow for the free movement of the human agency. Confluence means that God and men work together freely and harmoniously, each according to their proper nature. Thus, “God predetermined all the matter and form of the several books,”40 while human writers produced what we call the “human side” of Scripture.41 As instruments, the normal functions of the prophets were not hindered by inspiration. In the evangelical model, inspiration as superintendence-influenceconfluence is consistently applied to the whole of Scripture.42 It clearly overcomes the difficulties of a mechanical view of inspiration with the more dynamic concept of confluence. Yet, the Augustinian-Calvinistic concept of sovereignty, developing out of a timeless view of God’s nature and activity,

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

203

means that God still controls everything from the experience, thoughts, and words of the humans involved to the matter, content, organization, and words of Scripture. At a practical level the evangelical model does not make room for prophets who operate as real thinkers and authors.

§56. THE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECT Before we continue, we should remember that a theological model is a sort of theoretical umbrella covering several variations on a general view of an issue, as exemplified in the writings of different theologians. This chapter, then, does not describe Hodge’s or Warfield’s views per se, but rather the broad model which they represent. Instead of reversing it, the evangelical model solidified the hermeneutical schism initiated by the modern model. Conservative American Protestants are most likely to adopt some version of the evangelical model as described in this chapter. Modernity departed from classical thinking at the level of hermeneutical presuppositions. The evangelical model did not even address the philosophical issues involved, but simply returned to the presuppositions of the classical model and intensified them. This rehashing of an old way of thinking did not appeal to modern theologians, who had rejected classical philosophy based on profound arguments. Not surprisingly, the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration appealed most to conservative American Protestant believers, and remains at the center of the broad group of denominations and theologies known as American evangelicalism. As we might expect, the evangelical model possesses the same hermeneutical effects as the classical model. However, its unique emphasis and inner logic trigger some idiosyncratic effects related to the authority of Scripture and to its interpretation.

1. Effects on the Authority of Scripture a. Divinization of Scripture

HOME PAGE 204

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

The divinization of Scripture refers to the supernatural quality fused into the writings of the prophets by inspiration. In all fairness, proponents of the evangelical model never assert that the Bible is divinized by inspiration. Instead, inspiration is said to confer “divine qualities” on the text.43 Moreover, they readily affirm the contribution and freedom of the human writers. But the difference between saying that Scripture has divine qualities or is divinized is probably semantic, one of degree rather than essence. And to affirm that the biblical text undergoes a transformation from a merely human work to some unspecified level of divinity opens this position to the charge of neglecting the obvious human nature of biblical writings. Whatever those divine qualities are, they relate directly to two characteristics of the biblical text, according to the evangelical model: immediacy and inerrancy. Immediacy plays an important role in the spiritual realm, while inerrancy is decisive in the epistemological arena. b. Immediacy Warfield strongly supports the divine immediacy of Scripture: “Thus these books become not merely the word of godly men, but the immediate word of God Himself, speaking directly as such to the minds and hearts of every reader.”44 Not all evangelical authors elevate the divine quality of Scripture to the same paramount level of biblical inerrancy. The act of linking divine immediacy to the text seems to be a counterattack on the noncognitive encounters of the modern model of revelation-inspiration. The claim that inspiration confers a divine quality to human writing, thus elevating it to a different level, may well overstate the evangelical position. There is only a tangential connection between the divine quality of Scripture and inerrancy. Both result from inspiration and qualify Scripture. They mutually reinforce each other. Because of the unnecessary implicit divinization of Scripture within the evangelical model, supporters open themselves to the charge of bibliolatry, or the worship of Scripture. While most evangelical theologians of the early twenty-first century are certainly not guilty of bibliolatry, one cannot expect

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

205

to avoid the allegation when claiming a divine quality for the text of the Bible. Critics working from the modern model should not dismiss the claims of the evangelicals summarily by accusing them of bibliolatry. On the other hand, evangelical theologians cannot afford to ignore such philosophical issues in conversation with their modern counterparts. c. Inerrancy We have already mentioned one of the primary characteristics attributed to Scripture through inspiration, in the evangelical view: inerrancy. The idea of inerrancy is so similar to those of infallibility and trustworthiness that for all practical purposes they are synonymous.45 Evangelicals do not all agree on the exact meaning and extent of inerrancy. Many believe that Hodge and Warfield went too far in their definition of inerrancy. Naturally, disagreements on what it means are usually connected to differences over revelation and inspiration. The acceptance of some form of “thought” inspiration or degrees of inspiration is usually the source of variance. In this chapter, I am basing my comments on the writings of Hodge and Warfield, who are broadly recognized as outstanding representatives and defenders of the evangelical model. Hodge and Warfield see inerrancy as the historical position of the Christian church. While recognizing that Scripture was not “designed to teach philosophy, science or human history as such,” they assert that “all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical fact, or of psychological or philosophical principle, are without any error when the ipssima verba of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense.”46 Inerrancy includes “accuracy,” “which secures a correct statement of facts or principles intended to be affirmed” but excludes “exactness” or “an exhaustive rendering of details, an absolute literalness.”47 From this statement, it becomes clear that inerrancy, even as understood by Hodge and Warfield, requires some conditions. First, inerrancy applies to affirmations or statements of Scripture. Second, since errors could have been introduced over centuries of copying far removed from the original written

HOME PAGE 206

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

copies of the Bible books, textual criticism must be used to secure the original wording as far as possible. Finally, the affirmations must be taken in their “natural and intended sense.” Even with these caveats, the claim of inerrancy covers many areas and subjects not only within the unverifiable spiritual realm, but also in the natural and historical worlds open to everyday study. Every affirmation, then, in these two areas becomes open to verification or refutation. In the spiritual arena of worship and personal religious experience, the claim of inerrancy indeed seems to build confidence in the biblical message. But in the theological arena, inerrancy falls short of evangelicals’ apologetical aim to extricate the darts of modernity. Because the evangelical model claims that biblical affirmations, even those of the historical and natural realms, are inerrant, it places the authority of Scripture on precarious and shaky theological ground. If one historical error should be proven, for example, Scripture is no longer inerrant and therefore no longer authoritative. Moreover, if one error is proven, the whole Christian faith becomes suspect. The spiritual experience of believers may shatter if some mistake, no matter how small and insignificant, is discovered in Scripture. The inerrancy asserted by the evangelical model creates a slippery-slope dynamic which inexorably undermines faith – the faith of those trapped between the doctrinal conviction that Scripture is inerrant, and the exegetical perception that errors are present there. Hodge and Warfield openly recognized that “if the Scriptures do fail in truth in their statements of whatever kind, the doctrine of inspiration which has been defended in this paper cannot stand.”48 Moreover, they reiterate that “a proved error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine, but the Scripture claims, and therefore its inspiration in making those claims.”49 Since the issue of inerrancy is always open to challenge, it can never achieve closure in the theological realm. Its defenders are left with the constant task of defending their position. Instead of discouraging opponents from attacking the veracity of Scripture, the inerrancy claim motivates them to fabricate new arguments. Evangelicals are forced to answer these charges to maintain their credibility. Inviting the enemy to shoot at you is not a good defensive strategy.

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

207

Finally, the affirmation of scriptural inerrancy does little to change the views of modernist theologians who are already convinced there are demonstrable errors in Scripture. Instead of addressing the philosophical issues behind the modern model, proponents of the evangelical model resort to mere criticism of the basic modern understanding of God and human nature. We will return to the issue of inerrancy and hermeneutical presuppositions later. d. Full Authority The evangelical model assigns full authority to the word of God. Establishing that authority was the goal evangelicals pursued in their attempt to shape modern Christian theology. To the evangelical model, Scripture’s full authority rests on its verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy. If these two aspects of the Bible are rejected, its authority cannot be affirmed in the theology and life of the church. If one error is found in Scripture— an ever-present possibility— its authority is undermined.

2. Effects on the Interpretation of Scripture Like the others, the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration directly affects how a person interprets the Bible. To briefly review, as in the classical model, evangelical theologians interpret Scripture in reference to its spiritual, supernatural, timeless subject matter. That subject matter is thought of as the gospel, though, rather than timeless truth. When closely tied to the concept of predestination, the gospel becomes as speculative and timeless as the truths of classical Christianity. Evangelical theologians who view the gospel in this way usually subscribe to the idea of thought inspiration. In terms of hermeneutical results, the evangelical model goes beyond the classical model in one significant respect. Because inspiration is verbal and plenary, the historical passages of Scripture are not mere “illustrations” of eternal truths, but are upgraded to revelation.

HOME PAGE 208

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Remember, the classical model proposes that revelation refers to timeless truths from a timeless God. God reveals few eternal truths in Scripture, but does so through usage of historical and mythical illustrations. Since God and truth are timeless but the historical contents of Scripture are obviously based in space and time, those contents must be illustrations only. In contrast, the evangelical model’s emphasis on inerrancy makes the distinction between timeless truths and their spatiotemporal illustrations less clear. Proponents of inerrancy claim that every scriptural affirmation is absolute truth, while to classical theologians most affirmations are spatiotemporal illustrations of eternal truth. They might ask why we should defend the truthfulness of mere illustrations. There is no need to argue about the historicity of Aesop’s fables, because what matters in those stories is the moral— the timeless truth. Nevertheless, the evangelical model broadens divine truth to include what classical thinking understood as mere illustrations. God’s truth also refers to the spatiotemporal realm, so its descriptions in the Bible must be inerrant. This expansion of divine truth is required by the central role that the cross of Christ plays in evangelical theology. Because the evangelical model portrays God as speaking from heaven directly to each human being, through Scripture, about both spiritual and historical matters, believers are led to interpret the words of Scripture as the very words of the absolute God. The Bible conveys the truths and the will of a timeless, irresistible, sovereign being. In the book are words God himself selected to talk to us from heaven. Theologians may need to use textual criticism to make sure that these words are as close to the original as possible; they may need to study grammar and history to understand those words. But after these preliminaries are complete, each biblical affirmation is to be understood as absolute, divine truth, spoken from the will of a timeless, irresistible, sovereign God. Of course, pastors and church members know better. They have put two and two together and have recognized the obvious. They know that the same sovereign, irresistible power that inspired Scripture is present within them, irresistibly illuminating the understanding of believers. “Niceties”such as textual criticism and the grammatical-historical method of interpretation do not apply in

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

209

real life. Didn’t Christ himself promise that the Holy Spirit will guide to all truth? The hermeneutics of fundamentalism depend not only on the evangelical model of inspiration, but also its natural corrolary, the idea of Spirit-led interpretation. The question is not whether God inspires or illumines, but how one assumes that God performs such activities. In the evangelical model, based like the classical model in part on ancient philosophy, God is a timeless, irresistible sovereign, who does everything according to His own eternal will. If God superintends the writing of Scripture through inspiration, His illumination superintends its interpretation. Just like inspiration, illumination becomes a miracle of God’s irresistible grace. Believers who assume God acts in this way naturally confuse their own understanding of Scripture as God’s will for all creation. This fundamentalist method of interpretation contains at least two basic flaws. First, it encourages the notion that serious study or reflection is unnecessary to understand the Bible. As a believer reads the word of God, a mere prayer will secure the miracle of interpretation. God’s irresistible sovereignty covers the minds of believers as well as it did the creation of the Bible; as He is solely responsible for the words of Scripture, he is also solely responsible for how believers understand them. Second, because of this miraculous view of illumination, believers are bound to confuse their partial and incorrect interpretations of Scripture with God’s will for the entire human race. Moreover, because believers are convinced that they understand God’s truth effortlessly and perfectly, they also believe that whoever disagrees with them is not only wrong, but has not received the spirit of illumination. Dialogue is impossible under these hermeneutical conditions. To be fair, evangelical theologians and believers would explicitly disapprove of any application of this kind of fundamentalist hermeneutic. But the philosophical ideas on which evangelicalism builds its views of revelation, God, and the gospel make it inevitable; in fact, this kind of understanding flourishes.

§57. EVALUATION

HOME PAGE 210

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

1. Criteria To review (§39.1, 50.1), our criteria for evaluating this or any model are consistency, or whether the model agrees with what the Bible says about itself; coherence, or whether the model accounts for the characteristics of Scripture as a book; and practical application, the hermeneutical effect and theological results of viewing the Scripture through the model, which demonstrates the strong and weak points of that model.

2. Consistency and Coherence Just like the classical model it is based on, the evangelical model passes the consistency test with flying colors, but fails the test of coherence. The evangelical model clearly teaches that God is the direct author of the entire Bible, from the general conception of the book, to its contents, literary styles, and words. But both the classical and evangelical models do not account for the many human characteristics of the text uncovered by exegesis. In contrast to the classical model, the evangelical model seeks to accommodate the contributions of the human agent to Scripture. But it relies on the biblical doctrine of Scripture instead of observing also the phenomena of Scripture— that the biblical writers contributed directly as individuals to Scripture’s content. If the Bible writers contributed to the book’s content, it might jeopardize the sovereignty of God; if the sovereignty of God’s will is challenged, it might damage the evangelical understanding of the gospel and justification by faith alone. These possibilities cannot even be addressed because it would endanger the identity of the evangelical movement. The evangelical model thus fails the test of coherence.

3. Practical Application Departing from the classical model of revelation-inspiration, and the thoughtinspiration theory, the evangelical model’s inerrancy claim seems to broaden the Bible’s theological usefulness. The historical contents of Scripture— what the classical model terms “illustrations” of eternal truth— become inerrant, divine revelations. All that the Bible contains comes out of God’s revelation

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

211

through theophany, miracle, or providence. Why must the Bible be inerrant? To affirm its authority for the church, one might answer. Yes. But, under what category does that authority fall? We would assume that the Bible is the source for theology, belief and doctrine in the church. The evangelical model has a clear potential advantage over the modern and classical positions in that it allows a broader theological scope for the Bible. Within the spiritual life, every statement helps and can be a means through which the Holy Spirit speaks to the believer. But in actual practice, the evangelical model does not use all inerrant affirmations in Scripture to develop Christian doctrines. Instead, it employs a selective process similar to that applied by the classical model. The same presuppositions that ground the evangelical model— that the Bible exists chiefly to reveal salvation— also determine that only some inerrant affirmations of Scripture are essential for theology. Large numbers of inerrant statements are only indirectly relevant, while others are totally unnecessary. In other words, evangelical theology correctly emphasizes that the aim of Christian theology is to understand the issue of salvation. Evangelical terminology categorizes God’s work for the sinner under the biblical label of “gospel.” The gospel is the salvific action of God or the good news that God has already enacted salvation for us. God is presupposed to be timeless in both the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration and the evangelical understanding of the gospel. In both cases, God never changes, but acts according to His timeless and sovereign nature. Since His act of salvation in the gospel belongs to the timeless realm, the divine action through which God saves is not historical, but eternal. If Christ is God, then he carries out the process of salvation sovereignly. The evangelical understanding of gospel, then, necessarily includes the twin notions of timelessness and sovereignty (see §53.1 above). The evangelical presuppositions of God’s timeless nature lead to a timeless understanding of the gospel as a salvific act, and the sections of the Bible that cannot be reconciled with this preconception of salvation are naturally discounted. The selection process flows from presupposition to gospel to the text of Scripture. Since eternal predestination and justification are easily reconcilable with the activity

HOME PAGE 212

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

of a timeless Omnipotent, they reside at the heart of the evangelical understanding of not only the gospel, but Scripture as well. From this position, evangelicals proceed to differentiate between the necessary and unnecessary portions of Scripture. For instance, some affirmations (such as Romans 3:20-28) are considered to be more directly connected to the gospel than others (for example, James 2:1426). Furthermore, most affirmations about God’s salvation in the Old Testament are seen as only indirectly connected to the gospel. This selectivity through an understanding of the gospel does not negate the absolute inerrancy of every affirmation in both Old and New Testaments. It means only that not all affirmations have the same theological value. The theological value of a biblical affirmation is not determined by its inspiration, but by how closely the statement relates to the gospel— the subject matter of revelation. However, the evangelical model posits that everything God inspired is inerrant. For instance, God revealed information about Israel related neither to the gospel nor to salvation. Much of that information refers to past events, which can be verified through archaeology and history. But when God predicts events that have not yet taken place, the situation becomes more complicated. This is the case with unfulfilled prophecies about Israel. These prophecies play no role in understanding the gospel, yet if they do not come to pass the entire Bible— and therefore the gospel— will be proven wrong. Therefore, every Old Testament prophecy must be fulfilled as it reads; that is, it must be fulfilled in the literal state of Israel. (The dispensationalist school of prophetic interpretation operates on this historical basis.) Since prophecy is unrelated to the gospel, it plays only a corroborative role within revelation-inspiration; when fulfilled, prophecy shows that God keeps His word and, therefore, can be trusted in what matters most— the revelation of the gospel. The evangelical model was supposed to restore what the modern model took away— the biblical foundations of classical Protestant theology, especially the understanding of the gospel. Yet, the evangelical model of inspiration inadvertently restored more biblical data than its theology requires. In other words, it set up the inerrancy of many spatiotemporal affirmations unessential to the evangelical understanding of the gospel.

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

213

The evangelical model of revelation-inspiration is much like the classical model in its selective use of Scripture. While for classical theologians eternal truths are the subject matter of theology and therefore the Bible, for evangelical theologians the subject matter of theology is the gospel. Both positions, however, are based on the extrabiblical, philosophical notion that God cannot operate in space and time. Even when the evangelical model theoretically opens divine revelation to the historical realm, its presuppositions of God’s nature and actions restrict its own understandings much as the classical model does. The evangelical model, however, retains more biblical affirmations than the classical model, since its selectivity is based on the gospel rather than eternal truths.

§58. REVIEW • Roman Catholicism answered modernity by way of aggiornamento – “bringing up to date.” Roman Catholicism’s hermeneutical presuppositions were based on Platonic philosophy, which attributed timelessness to eternity and supernature, while allowing for change at the lower, temporal-historical level of reality. Because of this flexibility, Roman Catholic theologians were permitted to adopt the historical-critical method, since any understanding of the historical shell of revelation would not affect the timeless truth it contained. The essence of revelation would remain untouched by modern methodologies. • American evangelicalism answered modernity by affirming the inerrancy of Scripture. Although sharing the same two-tier understanding of reality, American conservative Protestantism could not apply the historical-critical method to Scripture because the cross of Christ— a historical event— played a central role in their theology that was not required in Roman Catholic teaching. Instead, they emphasized and sharpened the classical ideas of inspiration and inerrancy.

HOME PAGE 214

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

• Building on the classical model of nature and supernature, the evangelical model emphasizes the sovereignty of God and the total depravity, or corruption, of human nature. The ideas of divine sovereignty and total depravity of human nature were based on the classical views of a timeless God and soul. • The concept of divine sovereignty is built on Augustine’s view of God’s will. Augustine clearly understood that the will of a timeless God must be immutable. Therefore, His actions have been, are, and will be always the same without variation. God is sovereign because nothing can condition His will and actions. All events and realities in history are expressions of His unchangeable will and power. • The idea of total human depravity is based on understanding the soul as timeless. Human reason is assumed to work timelessly, but it cannot function properly in its present state. Total depravity is based on the belief that the fall has had permanent and devastating effects on the human soul, preventing the proper operation of the entire range of human capabilities. Contrary to the classical view, in which the fall has caused minimal damage to the natural capacity for reason, evangelicals believe that the fall has permanently damaged it. • The evangelical model of inspiration builds on the classical model. The evangelical model essentially modifies the classical model into an apologetical tool in the battle against modern theology and the historicalcritical method of biblical interpretation. • Revelation is cognitive and is responsible for all the material in the Bible; it comes through theophanies, miracles, and providence. Theophany is the actual presence of God in time and space. Miracles include dreams and visions, or prophecy. Providence covers the events of

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

215

biblical history and interpretations of those events. Therefore, the content of revelation includes not only timeless, but also temporal-historical material. • The evangelical model stresses inspiration over revelation. Even though evangelical authors address revelation, their emphasis is on inspiration, because inspiration, unlike revelation, covers all of Scripture and results directly in the final product. • Verbal inspiration is preferred to thought inspiration. The evangelical model affirms that God verbally inspires the biblical writers, reaching the very words of Scripture. In contrast, within thought inspiration God reaches their thoughts, but not their words. • Plenary inspiration replaces partial inspiration or degrees of inspiration. Supporters of the evangelical model believe that the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit reaches every word in Scripture: plenary inspiration. They reject two ideas specifically, first, that inspiration reaches only selected portions of Scripture and, second, that different parts of the Bible are inspired in different degrees. They reject these ideas because they would allow interpreters to distinguish the authoritative portions of Scripture from less or nonauthoritative portions. • Inspiration operates as a mysterious, all-powerful creative energy or charisma from God. Inspiration is the sovereign power of God, leading the Bible writers to record His words in Scripture. This energy is the same power God uses in creation, salvation, the sacraments, and miracles. While we know that God operates through His power (energy), how that divine energy works is a mystery to us. • Inspiration does not operate as mechanical dictation. The evangelical model strongly rejects the idea of mechanical dictation

HOME PAGE 216

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

because it does not do justice to the human contribution in the process of writing. When the modus operandi (manner of operation) of inspiration is understood as dictation (God chooses the words of Scripture verbatim) prophets make no contribution whatsoever to the text of Scripture. • Inspiration, as a sovereign, irresistible, divine charisma, operates in confluence with the human agency. God’s sovereign, irresistible energy combines mysteriously with the human being. How the divine and human agencies combine is an enigma, but supporters of the evangelical model believe that in that confluence, both operate according to their proper nature. God operates sovereignly and the human agency, because of its total depravity, operates in total submission. The results of this confluent operation are determined by the divine cause, but follow the form of human operation. As we study the phenomenon of inspiration in Scripture, we can perceive only its human side because its divine side is mysterious to us. • Inspiration passes into the text of Scripture as a divine quality. In the classical model, inspiration was thought to elevate the human capabilities of the prophets. In the evangelical model, inspiration elevates the written text as well. A sort of divinization of Scripture remains implicit in the evangelical model. Here divinization of Scripture is understood as a literary medium— the letters of Scripture— not as content but as what Scripture says to the reader at any given time. • Scripture in its original manuscripts is inerrant. Since all the original manuscripts of the Bible have been lost, textual criticism becomes necessary to determine the words of the original texts. Inerrancy means Scripture contains no mistakes in any issue it addresses, not only on salvation or spiritual matters, but on history and natural science as well. • Scripture is invested with full, divine authority. All of Scripture is the word of God and, therefore, has full divine

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

217

authority over both individuals and the body of the church. • The evangelical model of inspiration and its correspondent belief in divine illumination encourages an ahistorical fundamentalistic hermeneutic. If Scripture is a book inspired by God, it communicates the will of God directly from heaven to each human being. Its interpretation can be secured only by divine illumination, an energy or charisma that secures the correct meaning of God’s word in the mind of the reader. This inadvertently encourages the fundamentalistic hermeneutic: whatever any believer gains from a superficial reading of the Bible is the infallible, inerrant will of God. It is even more of a problem when the reader assumes that since what he or she understands is the absolute word of God, it applies to everyone else as well. What the human agent understands has been caused by God. • As in the classical model, the evangelical model of inspiration maximizes the divine aspect of Scripture and minimizes the human. In so doing, the evangelical model well accounts for the teachings of Scripture about itself, but does not answer the phenomena of Scripture. The evangelical model does allow for more human contribution than does mechanical dictation. But it stops short of allowing genuine human contribution to the content of Scripture. • As with the classical and modern models, the evangelical model is consistent with itself and its presuppositions. The evangelical model flows from the hermeneutical presuppositions it accepts and tailors for itself. In spite of its inner coherence, the evangelical model, as with the classical model is not able to harmoniously incorporate all the relevant data, specifically the phenomena of Scripture. The characteristics of the Bible as a literary piece indicates a higher contribution of the human agency in the generation of the contents of Scripture.

HOME PAGE 218

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

ENDNOTES 1

Regarding revelation, the council maintained that “it was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it: ‘In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son’(Heb 1:1). It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone without difficulty, with firm certitude, and with no intermingling of error. This does not make revelation absolutely necessary; the reason is that God directed human beings to a supernatural end” (“Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith,”in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman Tanner [London: Sheed & Ward, 1990], 2.2-4). Moreover, the human authorship of Scripture was controlled by the Holy Spirit: “These books [Old and New Testaments] the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church” (ibid., 2.7). Finally, consider the stern condemnation of dissenters: “If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one’s internal experience or private inspiration: let him be anathema” (ibid., canon 2.3.3). 2

The First Vatican Council reaffirmed Roman Catholicism’s long philosophical tradition by stating that “the perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known” (ibid., 4.1). 3

“Consequently, theories of evolution, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, posit that the mind emerged from the forces of living matter or as

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

219

a mere epiphenomenon of matter and, thus, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person” (John Paul II, "Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution for It Involves Conception of Man." http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html: Catholic Information Network [CIN], 1996). 4

George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 37. 5

Ibid., 27-38.

James Barr, The Scope and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 65. 7

Augustine writes, “It is not, then, to be doubted that men’s wills cannot, so as to prevent His doing what He wills, withstand the will of God, ‘who hath done all things whatsoever He pleased in heaven and in earth,’and who also ‘has done those things that are to come;’since He does even concerning the wills themselves of men what He will, when He will” (“Treatise on Rebuke and Grace,” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, ed. Philip Schaff [Albany, OR: Books for the Ages, 1997], 5:1.45). 8

The following passage suggests that human beings are free to choose to be wicked, but once they have done so, God’s sovereign will controls what their evil deeds actually are. “It is, therefore,” says Augustine, “in the power of the wicked to sin; but that in sinning they should do this or that by that wickedness is not in their power, but in God’s, who divides the darkness and regulates it; so that hence even what they do contrary to God’s will is not fulfilled except it be God’s will” (“A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, ed. Philip Schaff [Albany: Books for the Ages, 1997], 5:1.33). 9

Augustine, Confessions, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Pilkington, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 (Albany: Ages Software, 1996), 1:12.15.18). 10

Augustine writes, “But if we speak of that will of His which is eternal as His foreknowledge, certainly He has already done all things in heaven and on earth that He has willed,— not only past and present things, but even things still future. But before the arrival of that time in which He has willed the occurrence of what He foreknew and arranged before all time, we say, It will happen when God wills.

HOME PAGE 220

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

But if we are ignorant not only of the time in which it is to be, but even whether it shall be at all, we say, It will happen if God wills,— not because God will then have a new will which He had not before, but because that event, which from eternity has been prepared in His unchangeable will, shall then come to pass” (The City of God, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, ed. Philip Schaff [Albany: Books for the Ages, 1997], 2:22.2). 11

John Calvin writes, “The other writers who came after them, while each sought praise for his own cleverness in his defense of human nature, one after another gradually fell from bad to worse, until it came to the point that man was commonly thought to be corrupted only in his sensual part and to have a perfectly unblemished reason and a will also largely unimpaired. Meanwhile the well-known statement flitted from mouth to mouth: that the natural gifts in man were corrupted, but the supernatural taken away. But scarcely one man in a hundred had an inkling of its significance. For my part, if I wanted clearly to teach what the corruption of nature is like, I would readily be content with these words. But it is more important to weigh carefully what man can do, vitiated as he is in every part of his nature and shorn of supernatural gifts” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles [Albany: Book for the Ages, 1998], 2.2.4). 12

Ibid., 2.3.5.

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1927), 15. 14

Ibid., 17.

Ibid., 22.

Ibid., 22-23.

Ibid., 23.

Peter M. van Bemmelen, Issues in Biblical Inspiration: Sanday and Warfield, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 13 (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1987), 253. 19

“Each sacred writer was by God specially formed, endowed, educated, providentially conditioned, and then supplied with knowledge naturally, supernaturally

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL

221

or spiritually conveyed, so that he, and he alone, could, and freely would, produce his allotted part” (A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979], 14). 20

B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. S. G. Craig (Philadelphia: Pressbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1948), 160. 21

Ibid.

Hodge and Warfield, 6.

See John Scullion, The Theology of Inspiration (Notre Dame, IN: Fides, 1970), 26-27. 24

Millard J. Erickson writes, “The dynamic theory [of inspiration] emphasizes the combination of divine and human elements in the process of inspiration and of the writing of the Bible. The work of the Spirit of God is in directing the writer to the thoughts or concepts he should have, and allowing the writer’s own distinctive personality to come into play in the choice of words and expressions. Thus, the person writing will give expression to the divinely directed thoughts in a way that is uniquely characteristic of him” (Christian Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990], 207); cf. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology [Westwood: Revell, 1907], 211). 25

John Henry Newman, On the Inspiration of Scripture, ed. J. Derek Holmes and Robert Murray (Washington, DC: Corpus Books, 1967), 108-109. 26

See G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, trans. Jack Rogers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 147. 27

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 181, n. 87. 28

According to Warfield, the definition of inspiration “purposely declares nothing as to the mode of inspiration. The Reformed Churches admit that this is inscrutable. They content themselves with defining carefully and holding fast the effects of the divine influence, leaving the mode of divine action by which it is brought about draped in mystery” (The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, 420-421). 29

John Calvin writes, “This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced

HOME PAGE 222

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. Whoever then wishes to profiting the Scriptures, let him first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that thine Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit” (Commentary on 2 Timothy 3:16). “This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it”(ibid.). 30

Geisler and Nix classify “mechanical”inspiration as an ultraconservative position that does not allow for errors in the original manuscripts or its copies (190). 31

Ibid. Geisler clarifies that not all fundamentalists follow this view. Some follow the evangelical view of either providence or concursive concurrence (170). 32

Ibid., 170.

Warfield, 421.

Ibid., 157.

Ibid., 58.

Ibid.

Hodge and Warfield, 6. Notice that in this definition the goal of inspiration is inerrancy, thus revealing the authors’apologetical intent. 38

Ibid.

Van Bemmelen, 240.

Hodge and Warfield write, “Thus God predetermined all the matter and form of the several books largely by the formation and training of the several authors, as an organist determines the character of his music as much when he builds his organ and when he tunes his pipes as when he plays his keys. Each writer also is put providentially at the very point of view in the general progress of revelation to which his part assigns him. He inherits all the contributions of the past. He is brought into place and set to work at definite providential junctures, the occasion affording him object and motive, giving form to the writing God appoints him to execute” (14-15).

HOME PAGE THE EVANGELICAL MODEL 41

223

Warfield, 150-151.

According to Hodge and Warfield, “The importance of limiting the word ‘inspiration’to a definite and never-varying sense, and one which is shown, by the facts of the case, to be applicable equally to every part of Scripture, is self-evident, and is emphasized by the embarrassment which is continually recurring in the discussions of this subject, arising sometimes from the wide, and sometimes from the various, senses in which this term is used by different parties” (7). 43

In Warfield’s words, “[T]he Spirit of God, flowing confluently in with the providentially and graciously determined work of men, spontaneously producing under the Divine directions the writings appointed to them, gives the product [Scriptures] a Divine quality unattainable by human powers alone” (158). 44

Ibid. A few sentences later, Warfield further clarifies that through inspiration the text “speaks this Divine word immediately to each reader’s heart and conscience; so that he does not require to make his way to God, painfully, perhaps even uncertainly, through the words of His servants, the human instruments in writing the Scripture, but can listen directly to the Divine voice itself speaking immediately in the scriptural word to him.” 45

Van Bemmelen, 293-394.

Warfield and Hodge, 28.

Ibid.

Ibid., 40.

Ibid., 41.

HOME PAGE

SECTION THREE THE HISTORICAL COGNITIVE MODEL In criticizing theological ideas, especially those involving presuppositions, there is a time for deconstruction and a time for construction. In the previous section, we examined models of revelation-inspiration currently representing the views of various Christian theologies. In this section, we move from deconstructing othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ideas to developing our own. The need for a new model of revelation-inspiration is a consequence of the strengths and weaknesses present in the models we have looked at. The strengths we will build on are the divine origin of the cognitive content of Scripture, from the classical and evangelical models, and the historical view of human nature and knowledge from the modern model. We will try to avoid the pitfalls of noncognitive revelation present in the modern model, and the timeless understandings of God, human nature, and knowledge found in the classical and evangelical models. As with the classical, liberal, and evangelical models, the historical-cognitive model must begin with presuppositions about God, humanity, and knowledge, presuppositions found in the Bible itself. These new presuppositions make our new model possible. After all, philosophy has changed again, with postmodern perspectives producing new views of ontology and epistemology undermining the classical-modern synthesis on which the existing models stand. In the following chapters, we will identify our hermeneutical presuppositions, then study the cognitive process of revelation and the linguistic process of inspiration (Chapters 12-14). We will look at how applying the historicalcognitive model affects theology, then compare and contrast the incarnation of Jesus Christ and that of the contents of Scripture (Chapters 15-16). We will analyze the patterns of revelation (Chapter 17) and the idea of inspiration as understood by the historical-cognitive model (Chapter 18). Finally, we will peruse the cognitive principle of Christian theology (Chapter 19) and close our study by considering the question of the Bibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reliability (Chapter 20).

HOME PAGE

12. THE POSTMODERN SHIFT: THE POSSIBILITY OF A NEW MODEL

We have made good progress in our search for the meaning of revelationinspiration. As we enter the final stretch of the study, we must decide between understanding revelation-inspiration as a choice, or as a challenge. If we perceive it as a choice, we will simply choose one of the existing models of revelation-inspiration discussed in the previous section. But if we find ourselves unsatisfied with any of those models, we are challenged with developing another one.

§59. LOOKING FOR A NEW MODEL 1. A Previous Model, or a New One? Most theologians, even those few that still give some thought to the question of revelation-inspiration, choose to build their views as modifications of the classical, modern, or evangelical models (Chapters 8-11). For example, in Paul Achtemeier’s recent Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture,1 he criticizes the evangelical model because of its dogmatic presuppositions on the verbal inspiration of Scripture— and then dogmatically sides with the presuppositions of the modern model.2

HOME PAGE THE POSTMODERN SHIFT

227

I have a different strategy; I invite you, the reader, to view the classical, modern, and evangelical models not as alternatives to choose from, but as springboards to an entirely new model.

2. Proper Methodological Procedure In our analysis, we have found that the classical, modern, and evangelical models fail to account for either the doctrine of Scripture, or for its phenomena. In spite of that failure, each model has strong points that cannot be discarded without hampering our understanding of revelation-inspiration. As we develop our new model, then, we will not start from scratch, but will rely on the experience we gained from examining both the failures and successes of the previous models. How should we begin? A contemporary approach would indicate that our explanations must be guided by the facts and events we are trying to understand. We are advised to let the object of study speak for itself, instead of following ideas external to the facts or preconceived notions of what those events are. Since we are studying the origin of the Bible, our search for a new model of revelationinspiration should pay close attention both to what the Bible has to say about itself and to what the phenomena of Scripture reveal about how it came to be.

3. New Hermeneutical Presuppositions? To follow this procedure properly, we must consider not only how to formulate a new explanation of revelation-inspiration, but more importantly our own hermeneutical presuppositions. If we are to avoid the mistakes of previous models, we must begin with new presuppositions, or at least interpret the assumptions of the other models in a new way. Moreover, if our model is to smoothly integrate the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture, we must continue to follow the maxim we considered earlier: â&#x20AC;&#x153;to the things themselves.â&#x20AC;? As we have considered, previous models have started with presuppositions not from Scripture itself, but from extrabiblical philosophy. Unfortunately, even now many Christian theologians are convinced that philosophy alone can provide those presuppositions we need to understand

HOME PAGE 228

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

revelation-inspiration. In order to work within their own framework, we need to become aware of recent developments within philosophical thinking.

4. Purpose and Procedure In this chapter we will explore the shift at the bedrock level of Western philosophy which took place during the twentieth century. There we will find changes that may help Christian theologians to break free from their methodological dependence on philosophy. Has history come to the point where Christian thinkers no longer need philosophy to develop its presuppositions and consequent doctrines? We cannot solve such a weighty issue in this chapter, but we will gain at least a working perspective on the possibility of a more biblical development of theological presuppositions. What shall our strategy be in formulating a new model of revelationinspiration? First we must discuss how to “go beyond” previous models, and how Scripture itself, instead of philosophy, may guide us in the development of hermeneutical presuppositions for understanding revelation-inspiration.

§60. METHODOLOGY 1. “Going Beyond” Previous Models As we have said, we do not have to reject every aspect of the previous models to develop a new one. I suggest that we neither reject nor adopt them wholesale, but go beyond them. In other words, we adopt their contributions, but avoid their pitfalls, removing the chaff of their mistakes from the grain of their accuracy. At first, this idea of “distillation” may seem like an attempt to break new scholarly ground – as if we were trying to overcome previous positions. At second glance, it appears to be an elegant disguise of an eclectic methodology. In other words, the new model resulting from “going beyond” the classical, modern, and evangelical schools may only amount to an arbitrary rearrangement of past positions. In short, I want to warn you that the following chapters present neither

HOME PAGE THE POSTMODERN SHIFT

229

a totally new and original position nor a simple reshuffling of old teachings. To avoid these twin misconceptions, we must carefully consider the hermeneutical foundations of the historical-cognitive model. As we have defined it, going beyond previous models of revelationinspiration without falling into arbitrary eclecticism requires a new hermeneutical basis. In other words, since the previous models all presupposed certain things about God and human nature based on philosophy, and yet came out with inadequate understandings of revelationinspiration, we need to reexamine the structure of the divine-human relationship with regard to the Bible’s origin. Our aim in this chapter is to explore the philosophical foundation for a new model of revelationinspiration.

2. The Bible, Philosophy, and Hermeneutical Presuppositions Scripture has traditionally and consistently been read as nonphilosophical discourse. One reason is that biblical writers used nontechnical language, as they were addressing common people on the street. Everyday words notwithstanding, biblical authors presuppose a certain view of God and human nature. We have no reason to ask anyone else to help us define these issues philosophically unless we disagree with the biblical views— or have arbitrarily discarded them as nonphilosophical because they are not expressed in philosophical language. In this chapter, we will not attempt to establish the biblical doctrines of God or of human nature. Instead, our first task is limited to touching on just those aspects of God and human nature which will later function as hermeneutical presuppositions in our quest to understand revelationinspiration. Likewise, we cannot take the time here to translate biblical ideas into philosophical language. Our second objective in this chapter is to examine the philosophical climate at the beginning of the twenty-first century to assess whether theology’s hermeneutical dependence on philosophy can be ended. Next, we will consider the biblical understanding of God and human nature as hermeneutical presuppositions. Finally, we will look at the nature of knowledge based on the

HOME PAGE 230

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

second and third steps.

§61. THE POSTMODERN TURN IN PHILOSOPHY 1. From Kant to Heidegger The modern model of revelation-inspiration resulted from a paradigm shift in the philosophical understanding of human reason. As discussed above (§43), modern philosophy under the leadership of Immanuel Kant suggested that the classical view, in which human reason was able to know timeless things, was incorrect. Reason, he argued, can only reach temporal, spatial things. The timeless, supernatural realm where God and the soul existed was simply out of reach for human knowledge. This one change generated many other changes, resulting in a cultural climate generally known as modernity or the age of enlightenment (see Chapter 10). During the twentieth century, another paradigm shift took place in the arcane halls of philosophy. When, in 1927, a young German philosopher published a book about human existence, very few understood its epochmaking character. Even today, Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time3 seems to play little or no role in American philosophical and theological establishments. However, the revolutionary nature of Heidegger’s views was absorbed by his students. Thirty-six years later, one of them, Hans-Georg Gadamer, wrote that “the brilliant scheme of Being and Time really meant a total transformation of the intellectual climate, a transformation that had lasting effects on almost all the science.”4 Moreover, Heidegger’s revolutionary views have “penetrated everywhere and works in the depths, often unrecognized, often barely provoking resistance; but nothing today is thinkable without it.”5 What is all this about? Isn’t Gadamer grossly overstating the influence of his professor? At the beginning of the twenty-first century, most readers are familiar with the term “postmodernism” used to designate Western culture beginning in the last decade of the twentieth century. Postmodernism is a direct result

HOME PAGE THE POSTMODERN SHIFT

231

of Heidegger’s pioneering work.

2. Heidegger’s Philosophical Revolution There is no unanimously accepted understanding of what “postmodernity” means. But this cultural movement has affected different areas of our culture, among them architecture, the arts, philosophy, and theology. Generally, postmodernity is understood as a social phenomenon, in which cultural relativism has replaced the unified view of society prevalent in classical and modern times. Many factors led to the genesis of the postmodern, pluralistic culture of our time. Prominent among them is the conviction that reason cannot reach absolute truth; this view is the basis of cultural pluralism. a. Plato’s Two Worlds and Absolute Truth Once again we return to the roots of Western philosophy. About six centuries before Christ, a handful of Greek philosophers set out to explain reality as a whole based not on religious imagination, but on the observation of nature. They soon discovered that everything changes, and that consequently knowledge could never reach absolute truth (which they presupposed to be changeless). Tied to the perpetual changes in nature, human reason could reach only changing, relative truths. To avoid this relativism, Plato developed the idea that what we see is not all that exists, and that what we could not see was actually more important, in terms of truth. In other words, behind everyday reality lies another reality that cannot be reached with sensory perception. According to Plato, the world we can see is characterized by change. The world we cannot see, however, does not change and, therefore, is the ground for the changing world we perceive. Why does one world change and the other remain the same? Plato, following a lead from an earlier thinker named Parmenides, believed that change requires time, while immutability (changelessness) requires timelessness. Plato’s thinking gave birth to the classical understanding that spatiotemporal reality was grounded in timelessness— and timelessness was

HOME PAGE 232

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

the only location of absolute truth. The role of reason, as we discussed (§43.1), was to reach beyond temporal realities to their timeless ground. In so doing, Plato and subsequent Western thought believed that reason was able to access absolute, changeless truths. This is the basis of the two-worlds theory. b. Kant, Modernity, and Absolute Truth As we just mentioned, Kant taught that reason cannot reach timeless reality (§43.2). However, since Kant assumed that a timeless reality existed, he left the Platonic belief in two levels of reality unchallenged. Consequently, Kant’s view fostered relativism in the religious world. On the other hand, in the scientific world, he managed to keep alive the classical notion of absolute knowledge through some ingenious and difficult philosophical gymnastics. But modern philosophy and theology both built on Kant’s belief that reason can reach only the spatiotemporal level of reality . As a result, the so-called hard sciences are given final authority because they are believed to reach absolute conclusions. Modern Christian theologians who accept this intellectual structure embrace the teachings of science just as they interpret revelation-inspiration as a noncognitive, existential phenomenon. c. Plato’s Influence and Heidegger’s Revolution While studying philosophy many years ago, I stumbled onto Alfred North Whitehead’s famous remark that the history of Western philosophy was a series of footnotes to Plato. I dismissed it as an obvious overstatement, and attributed it more to the emotional involvement of the author with Platonic and Augustinian views than to actual historical fact. Yet after extensive reading in the history of Western philosophy, I came to realize that Whitehead was more or less correct. Plato’s philosophical framework pervades not only Western philosophy, but also Christian theology. Heidegger’s role as a revolutionary and “prophet” of postmodernism is simply due to his radical departure from Plato’s view.

HOME PAGE THE POSTMODERN SHIFT

233

d. Heidegger: Rejecting the Two-Worlds Theory For our purposes, we will compare Heidegger’s overall view with Plato’s. Like Plato, Heidegger attempted to interpret reality as a whole. But unlike Plato, who understood reality to be timeless and changeless, Heidegger expressed in technical language the idea that true reality is not timeless or spaceless, but spatiotemporal. In Heidegger’s writings he clearly rejected Plato’s two-worlds theory (§29.1). He could not accept Plato’s notion that our spatiotemporal world is a mere shadow of a timeless, spaceless world. According to Heidegger, Plato’s timeless world does not exist; only the spatiotemporal world does. For the first time in more than two millennia, Plato’s two-worlds theory was totally eliminated, turning both the classical and modern philosophical-theological frameworks upside down.

3. Consequences of Heidegger’s Change Cultural postmodernity is the result of the massive changes brought about by Heidegger’s reinterpretation of reality. It may be obvious to postmodern people that Plato’s view of a timeless foundation for reality is groundless and speculative. But the philosophical and cultural tasks resulting from Heidegger’s ideas are even more radical than those required by Kant’s epistemological switch. The process of reworking philosophy under postmodernity is referred to as “deconstruction;” once deconstruction is complete, new constructions must begin, much as city buildings are demolished to make space for new ones. Heidegger’s change requires that the old classical intellectual framework of Western culture must be destroyed. The problem is that the task of deconstruction is much easier than building new intellectual foundations after the old ones have proven faulty. In this section, we will briefly cover the most obvious consequences of postmodernism for theology and a new model of revelationinspiration— specifically, the death of timeless, absolute reason and the birth of historical, hypothetical reason.

HOME PAGE 234

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

a. The End of Absolute Reason and Absolute Truth At the basis of Western civilization is the belief that despite all the changes we observe around us, we are able to know an unseen, changeless reality— absolute truth. But Heidegger’s departure from Plato’s notion of reality as timeless renders the idea of absolute truth philosophically groundless; after all, once we have eliminated the concept of timelessness, we find in reality only change and movement. This realization, known as postmodern relativism, has left Western culture without its traditional, intellectual center. b. Historical Reason and Truth The rejection of reason and truth as timeless opens the door for a new understanding of reason, one which began with John Locke and David Hume, critics of classical intellectualism and modern rationalism. Postmodern thinkers agree with Kant that reason cannot access objects beyond the spatiotemporal realm, and that it is therefore historical in nature. If reason is historical, all knowledge must be an interpretation subject to prior contents in the mind of the individual. These presuppositions are not inherited characteristics of the mind, but are acquired through life experiences. All knowledge is identified with interpretation; to know is to interpret. But because life experiences differ, our knowledge of things varies. Since experience factors into the development of knowledge, it becomes impossible for people to draw identical conclusions about any given event. Only approximations of an ever-changing reality may be reached. Moreover, historical reason is inextricably bound to the history of the community or tradition to which one belongs. Tradition provides the common parameters or presuppositions that allow us to arrive at common conclusions. Tradition, society, and culture play unifying roles in historical reason. Of course, they can only relate what has been received, that is, a consensus of opinions that passed from one generation to the next. Since tradition as part of history is always changing, so is our knowledge of reality. Thus, historical reason is able to help us communicate within a changing tradition, but it cannot lead us to absolute truth— because truth itself, as an interpretation, is always changing.

HOME PAGE THE POSTMODERN SHIFT

235

§62. THE POSTMODERN THEOLOGICAL DIVIDE The theological significance of the postmodern turn in philosophy stands on the ancient and unchallenged methodological assumption that theology must depend on philosophy for its hermeneutical presuppositions (cf. §44). On this basis, we can easily understand why changes in philosophy may substantially affect theological ideas. The methodological influence of philosophy on theology becomes noticeable particularly when philosophical changes effect the content of the hermeneutical principles of theology. Such a change resulted in the modern theological divide in Christianity. Since theology still thinks it needs philosophically-based presuppositions, Christianity finds itself at an incipient postmodern theological divide. The time has come to seriously question this methodological assumption. Why should Christian theology depend on philosophy for its hermeneutical presuppositions? Can we trust philosophy for exegetical and theological purposes? To answer these questions, let us consider reason’s reliability as a philosophical tool.

1. The Hypothetical Nature of Reason and Philosophy Classical philosophy viewed reason as timeless; postmodern philosophy asserts that it is historical. Both views are equally viable from a philosophical viewpoint, but they cannot both be correct. How are we to decide between them? The history of philosophy tells us we have a choice between viewing reason as timeless or as historical, but reason itself is unable to tell us which option is correct. We must choose between one or the other to formulate any philosophical teaching; after all, it is a matter of understanding ultimate reality, and in two very different ways. But philosophical teaching cannot tell us which to begin with. Since we cannot know whether we began with a correct understanding of reason itself, any philosophy based on reason must be hypothetical. This point is known as the limits of reason. According to postmodern thinkers, reason is not only unable to reach absolute truth, but is grounded on what is called an exclusive disjunction; it must be one or the other, and cannot be conclusively demonstrated

HOME PAGE 236

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

to be either. Since it is based on reason in one view or the other, philosophy can never offer anything but hypothetical explanations of reality, and certainly not absolute truth.

2. The Postmodern Divide and Revelation-Inspiration As we have noted (§43), while classical theology taught that reason penetrated the core of timeless reality, Kant taught that such insight was impossible, even though he and subsequent modern theologians accepted the existence of ultimate reality and God as timeless. This forced a reinterpretation of the cognitive processes behind revelation-inspiration; after all, if reason can reach only spatiotemporal objects, it cannot serve as a means of communication between a timeless God and human beings living in time and space. But now, postmodern theologians not only agree that reason is limited to time and space, but following Heidegger’s reinterpretation, understand reality itself to be temporal. If there is no such thing as a timeless reality, God Himself somehow must be temporal— and must be conceived of in a completely different way than He has been for centuries. Moreover, without a timeless reality, Christianity has no philosophical ground for the traditional view of divine transcendence. In this sense, postmodern theology is still in its infancy. The idea of a temporal God may lead Christian theologians to some form of pantheism. If so, as the divine becomes identified with time and space, there may be no room left for the notion of revelation. Revelation would be superfluous if all people, including the writers of Scripture, turn out to be part of God. A postmodern view of inspiration, through a pantheistic lens, would be very similar to that espoused by modern theology. The origin of Scripture would still be understood as a result of human reflection and wisdom.

§63. THE POSTMODERN DIVIDE AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A NEW MODEL OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION

HOME PAGE THE POSTMODERN SHIFT

237

The philosophical divide created by the emergence of postmodernism provides the perfect opportunity to introduce a new model of revelationinspiration. As we have seen, Christian theologians have built the previous models based on hermeneutical presuppositions about God and human beings derived from philosophers contemporary to them. Postmodern philosophy is only now emerging, but its hermeneutical presuppositions will doubtless be much different than the modern and classical views. Is there a way to break this cycle of dependence? Postmodernity allows theology a way out in two ways. First, it reveals the relativity of philosophical discourse; second, it uncovers the fact that whether human reason operates timelessly or temporally is simply a matter of choice, as either option is viable.

1. The Relativity of Philosophical Discourse: An Opening for Biblical Revelation At the dawn of postmodern philosophy, theologians are faced with a decision between timelessness and temporality. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed than these two concepts. The question before theologians is, then, which is true? The days of a unified theological tradition are gone. Philosophical teachings have been shown to be mere hypotheses; the more broadly philosophers attempt to interpret reality, the more hypothetical their teaching becomes. If the philosophies on which theology has depended are unable to arrive at any unified understanding of reality, what does that mean for theology? By allowing for multiple interpretations of reason, postmodernity reveals that philosophical changes will not necessarily lead us to any certain increase in knowledge of the world. If philosophy and its consequent presuppositions have proved so unreliable, why should theology depend on it anymore? And if we cannot depend on philosophy, where do we go to discover the hermeneutical principles needed for theological discourse? If reason, due to a lack of clarity on its own nature, has shown its inadequacies and limitations for this task, we clearly do not need more of the same. Instead of reason and naturally originated discourse, we need revelation and supernaturally originated discourse.

HOME PAGE 238

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Where will we find such revelation? For Christian theologians, the answer should be simple— the Bible. If the answer is so simple, then why has it not been tried so far? The postmodern understanding of reality as temporal may help us to understand why Christian theology has not explored this path.

2. Reality as Temporal and Biblical Hermeneutical Principles Let us take a few moments to review what we have covered up to this point. As we have noted repeatedly, Christian theology has obtained its hermeneutical principles by adopting philosophical teachings (§41). Early on in the church’s history, those teachings came from the Greek tradition (§29). Chief among them was the idea that reality is ultimately timeless; Christian theologians embraced this idea and made it foundational to their theology (§29.4). They viewed God, his nature, and acts as timeless. Likewise, since the human soul and its capacity for reason shared this timelessness (§29.5), God could communicate with humans through the soul (§29.6). At the dawn of modern philosophy, Kant retained the notion of a timeless soul, but limited reason to space and time (§43.2). For all practical purposes theologians began to understand human nature in historical terms. The theory of evolution, for instance, replaced the idea of divine, instantaneous creation. Consequently, some Christians began to view the content of Scripture— what had been known as revelation— to be the product of human imagination and tradition. They deemed supernatural revelation impossible because a timeless God cannot communicate with historical beings (§47). In spite of the more recent shift toward a historically based reality, the notion of divine timelessness remains active in contemporary Christian theology. The presuppositions of both classical and modern philosophy seriously affected exegesis. After all, if God is assumed to be timeless, theologians interpret biblical texts describing God accordingly. But even the casual reader would notice that the Bible was written within a historical frame of mind. When theologians interpret a historically conceived text from a timeless, hermeneutical perspective, they displace its meaning. What the words present temporally and historically, theologians understand as timeless. In this setting, the text

HOME PAGE THE POSTMODERN SHIFT

239

is no longer descriptive or declarative, but metaphorical. Not surprisingly, theologians often build their views on reinterpretations of biblical texts dictated by the hermeneutical presupposition of divine timelessness. This chain of dependence on philosophy ultimately weakens the biblical thought. For the years that this situation remained unchallenged, there was little hope that theologians might consider biblical thought as an alternative to philosophical ideas. A philosophical exorcism was needed to break the philosophical spell. Heidegger, whose philosophy posits a reality grounded in time, provides such a force. To break the spell of philosophically grounded timelessness, what could be better than philosophically grounded temporality? Heidegger’s technical arguments for that temporality allowed scholars to extract their grounding philosophical ideas from the Bible itself. To explain further, before postmodernity, theologians argued that they could not take a philosophical use of biblical ideas seriously. In their minds, a dichotomy existed between the temporal reality depicted in Scripture, and the philosophical presupposition that reality had to be timeless. Postmodern philosophy accepts a temporal understanding of reality, eliminating this argument and making it possible for theologians to make use of biblical concepts for philosophical and hermeneutical purposes. If we are to gain our hermeneutical presuppositions from the Bible itself, we will have corrected a long overdue methodological inconsistency. As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, proper procedure requires that we examine any issue on its own terms. The classical and modern models of revelation-inspiration disregarded this basic principle and decided their hermeneutical principles from outside the subject of study. In stark contrast, we will define our hermeneutical principles for understanding revelationinspiration from its results— the fact of revelation-inspiration (§13). In the next chapter, we will examine the Bible for the hermeneutical presuppositions necessary to interpreting revelation and inspiration. Since biblical ideas work within a historical and temporal fabric, we anticipate the discovery of some entirely new hermeneutical presuppositions. Once that is complete, we will be well on our way to a new model of revelation-

HOME PAGE 240

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

inspiration.

§64. REVIEW • Insufficiency of the classical, evangelical and modern models In our search the meaning of revelation-inspiration, we cannot rely on either the classical, evangelical, or modern models. The first two do not properly account for the human contribution, while the latter does not properly account for the divine. • Going beyond the previous models Despite their insufficiency, earlier models have made positive contributions to understanding of revelation-inspiration. As we construct our new model, we must learn from those contributions while avoiding their mistakes. We call this critical procedure “going beyond.” • A new model of revelation-inspiration requires new hermeneutical presuppositions. The critical process of “going beyond” the old models does not by itself lead us to a new model; we also need new hermeneutical presuppositions. • Postmodernity as a social phenomenon Beginning in the last decade of the twentieth century, postmodernity has emerged as a Western social phenomenon. The conviction that all truth is relative to the culture it belongs to is a hallmark of postmodern societies. • Heidegger pioneered a philosophical revolution. During the twentieth century, Martin Heidegger pioneered a revolution in philosophy by arguing that reality was not timeless, but temporal. • Heidegger’s view of reality departed not only from modernity, but

HOME PAGE THE POSTMODERN SHIFT

241

primarily from classical Greek thought. By rejecting Plato’s two-worlds theory, Heidegger implicitly departed from Kant’s timeless understanding of supernature. • Heidegger’s temporal understanding of reality renders classical and modern notions of “absolute truth” groundless. The idea of absolute truth is based on a timeless understanding of reality and reason. As Heidegger taught that ultimate reality was not timeless but temporal, he took the philosophical ground from underneath the idea of absolute truth. • Historical reason replaces absolute reason. Historical reason works within the changing parameters of time and culture. It replaces timeless, universal, and unchanging categories of classical philosophy.

ENDNOTES 1

Paul Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999). 2

Achtemeier explains, “Instead of constructing such explanations of Scripture to save some prior notions of what Scripture is like critical scholars, noting that secular literature from the ancient world frequently developed from oral accounts or from the combination of a number of sources, ask whether that may not also by the case with the literature contained in our Bible”(64-65). It becomes clear that the modern view of the origin of Scripture that developed from the phenomena of Scripture became the presuppositions for Achtemeier’s theory of interpretation. He states that “it is our task

HOME PAGE 242

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

in the following pages to inquire about the nature of the inspiration of Holy Scripture, taking into account the discoveries about the nature of those Scriptures which have been made during the past century by the use of critical methods of studyâ&#x20AC;? (ibid., 91). 3

Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: Harper and Collins, 1962). 4

Hans-Georg Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics, trans. David E. Linge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), 138-139. 5

Ibid., 139.

HOME PAGE

13. BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

After our brief incursion into the philosophy of postmodernity and its potential impact on Christian theology, we are ready to turn our attention to a new model of revelation-inspiration.

Â§65. INTRODUCTION Our analysis thus far tells us that past models have not satisfactorily interpreted the revelation and inspiration of Scripture, since they do not account for all relevant data. On one hand, the classical and evangelical models do not satisfactorily account for the human aspects of the Bible, which are demonstrated in the phenomena of Scripture, or the characteristics of the book as a literary work. On the other hand, the modern model accounts for this human side, but it ignores the biblical writersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; assertion that their writings were of divine origin, as expressed in the doctrine of Scripture. Most theologians and church members do not deal with this question of revelation-inspiration. Their religious beliefs implicitly assume one of the three models. (This is why so many believers approach revelation-inspiration from a defensive perspective instead of an investigative one.) We may well be tempted to select a model of revelation-inspiration on the

HOME PAGE 244

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

basis of the beliefs we already hold, but as we discussed in the previous chapter, we do not have to choose between fixed alternatives— especially as we have clearly seen their deficiencies. Instead, we have chosen our own road, the complex task of building a new model of interpretation. I hope you find this as challenging and exciting as I do. The current philosophical and social climates are favorable to such an endeavor. Western culture is going through revolutionary social changes, based on a foundational philosophical change attacking the traditional frameworks of the classical and modern worldviews (§61). Within this context, we will use the same hermeneutical methodology we applied to our study of the previous models (§2.5.c) to explore the structure of a new one. Just as the others did, our new model must assume, by the procedures of hermeneutical analysis, the natures of the two agents involved in its production— God and the human writers (§12). In the previous chapter we showed how philosophy can only produce tentative results, due to the limits of reason (§62.1-2). Consequently, we as Christian theologians will take the opportunity to use biblical concepts to define the hermeneutical principles of revelation and inspiration. In other words, our new model retrieves its hermeneutical presuppositions from biblical thought, rather than from philosophy. While such a procedure is unusual, postmodern philosophical criticism has made it possible (§62 and 63). In this chapter we will retrieve presuppositions concerning the nature of God, the nature of human beings, and the nature of the cognitive connection between God and human beings, or reason.

§66. THE BIBLICAL GOD AND TIME This section is based on our discussion of the relationship between nature and supernature in Scripture (§31). In Chapter 6, we argued that the realm of the divine or supernature as presented in Scripture was not discontinuous or incompatible with the created realms of nature and history. Contrary to the philosophical traditions of Parmenides and Plato, the God of Scripture can act historically. This is obvious to any casual reader of the Old and New Testaments. The God of Scripture is not presented as somehow timeless, as

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

245

the classical tradition has assumed. But if God is not timeless, what is He? Should we say that God is temporal? If God is temporal, are we not making God into our own image? We know that a timeless God cannot act in time. Such a God cannot have a past, present, or future, but is himself a complete, simultaneous whole outside the sequence of time. Time and temporality, in the classical school of thought, are characteristics only of creation. In no way can time be found in God unless He becomes a creature. We can, however, characterize God as timeless if we suppose He is timeless in Himself. Yet when we try to apply timelessness to God’s actions, we find many theological inconsistencies and conundrums. To dodge these, classical and evangelical theologians have done all sorts of complex theological gymnastics, eventually denying the literal text of Scripture. Because Christian thinking has been so extensively influenced by the idea of timelessness, we must consider the relationship between God and time. Even though Scripture clearly depicts God acting in time, centuries of tradition are not easily dismissed. If in fact God is temporal, not only do we have to open our minds to that picture of Him, but we also must consider the logical consequences now, to avoid later problems. Sections §67 and §68 below address such questions (if the idea of a temporal God raises no questions for you, skip these two sections and resume reading in section §69.) Our understanding of how God relates to time will directly determine how we understand His relationship to the Bible writers— temporal beings— in the process of revelation-inspiration. This is the first and most decisive of our hermeneutical presuppositions, into which we must gain insight before we continue.

§67. GOD AND TIME In this section, we will assume that the temporal nature of God is selfevident in Scripture. This statement needs clarification. 1 Scripture does

HOME PAGE 246

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

not explicitly address the question of God and time, but assumes a relationship of God to time, implicitly within the text. In Chapter 6, we examined some preliminary biblical evidence of God’s interaction in time, specifically His dwelling in the Israelite sanctuary in the Old Testament, and the incarnation of God in Christ in the New(§31.1a-b). There are many other examples in Scripture; these only add consistency to the biblical writers’picture of God acting historically, within time. The Scriptural portrait of God flies in the face of the Platonic idea of timelessness. In the Bible, God relates to people in and through time— however uniquely He relates to time itself. This point needs clarification for the sake of our developing hermeneutical presuppositions, especially the question of whether God relates to time internally, within Himself and in His own nature, or only externally as He relates to us. But first, let me illustrate how important our understanding of God’s relationship to time is.

1. Is a Temporal God a Lesser God? After teaching for seven hours I was exhausted. I had a few moments to recuperate before the last class of the day. With my eyes closed and my mind in neutral, I was enjoying the break— and in no mood for chatting. Suddenly, a familiar voice broke my peace and quiet. “So you teach that God is not omnipotent,” Carlos, a fellow teacher, said abruptly. Without opening my eyes, I replied, “No.” That was clear enough, I thought. But Carlos was not satisfied. He continued pushing me on what I perceived as a nonissue. When Carlos said that he had recently heard some top church administrators expressing concern about my teaching against the omnipotence of God, I opened my eyes. Carlos asked if I had possibly learned this view from my teachers in the doctoral program. The answer to that was also no. Where could such a rumor have originated? Finally, I got a satisfactory explanation. Some months ago I had taught a course on Judeo-Christian thought for pastors in the field. During the class, I had taught that the God of the Bible is temporal, while the God of Greek philosophy was nontemporal. I had added that time does not mean the same thing to God as it does to us— something obvious from certain texts in the

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

247

Bible. But I did not explain the difference. This oversight must have caused the problem. The reasoning flows something like this: If God is temporal, He is limited. If God is limited, He cannot be omnipotent. I was not teaching that, but by omission, it followed as a logical conclusion of my statement about the temporality of God. Ever since then I have tried to avoid that pitfall. The temporality of God in Scripture does not leave us with a lesser God we need to “upgrade” with the Greek notion of timelessness. The temporality of God does not mean He is not the Eternal One. Because He is infinite, time does not limit His being, even though it limits ours. The point of our next two sections is to explain why temporality is not a limitation for God. With this objective in mind, let us begin our exploration of God’s relationship to time. Because our discussion will be limited to two sections, however, be forewarned that God’s relationship to time will be described only superficially.

2. God’s Nature and Time Classical and modern theologies do speak of a relationship between God and time. They do not ignore our temporal reality or the fact that Scripture speaks of God acting in time. When they read Scripture, however, they interpret God’s acts in history through the philosophical assumption that His nature is timeless. They believe God can act “in” history— just not exactly the way Scripture describes it. a. God “In” Time Many theologians use the preposition “in” as a technical word to signify activity originating from outside time, but resulting in historical effects in human experience. These theologians cannot conceive of a timeless God acting within a sequence of past, present, and future. Such an action is impossible for God. According to this view, God does not act “within,” but “in” time and history. Acting “in” history means that the results of God’s timeless acts reach our level of space and time; in contrast, acting “within”

HOME PAGE 248

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

history means that God acts from within the continuum of created, historical time. The former represents how classical and modern theologies understand the mode of God’s relationship to historical realities from outside of time. The latter corresponds to how the Bible depicts God’s actions. A timeless view of God, then, requires a specific understanding of divine activity substantially different from that portrayed by the Bible. These convictions, in turn, become hermeneutical presuppositions for addressing the question of revelation-inspiration. We have already seen the results of that application in the classical, modern, and evangelical models. b. God “Within” Time The Bible presents a God moving within the flow of history. We have described this as acting “historically in history” (see §31.3.a-b). This unusual phrase, “historically” indicates that as an agent, God can work within the complex causality of human history, in a sense becoming an agent among other agents. If the biblical picture of God acting historically in history is accurate, then God’s nature must be compatible with the flow of time. In other words, God’s nature must be temporal. To describe God as acting “within” time refers not just to those acts, but to divine nature as well. What, then, is the relationship between time and God’s nature?

§68. TIME AND GOD In a moment, we will identify how Scripture describes God’s relationship to time; first, we must ask how time relates to God. In other words, what do we mean by saying that God is temporal? This question is the other side of the question of timelessness we explored earlier in our discussion on the classical view of supernature (§29.4). We learned that the theological connotation of timelessness is different from its everyday meaning. By “timeless,” we usually mean something that is permanent, remaining the same in spite of the passage of time. Theologically, however, “timelessness” means the total negation of time. Something similar happens when

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

249

we say that God is temporal; it has a technical meaning within our discussion that it does not have in everyday usage.

1. Time as Transience We habitually connect the notion of time to the passing away of reality. What is temporal will come to an end. Thus, when we assert that God is temporal, some will automatically conclude that we believe God is transient and limited just as humans are. Moreover, the Bible associates time with impermanence or transience. Paul wrote that believers “look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18). Here, the word “temporal” (? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? ) literally means “transitory.” Besides, Paul tells us that what is transient is not eternal. Since God is eternal, then, it follows that God cannot be transient. If transience or impermanence is the meaning of time, then, the biblical God cannot be temporal. Moreover, we should avoid even suggesting it. But since the Bible portrays God acting in history, is there a way to say that He is temporal that will not imply transience? Is impermanence the ultimate answer for the meaning of time? At first glance, the association seems unavoidable. Moreover, that time implies finitude is not the only way our everyday understanding of time precludes the idea of a temporal God. We also tend to picture time as a container.

2. Time as Container Ordinarily, we picture time (together with space) as a huge container in which the universe is located. That container has a beginning and an end. To be temporal is to be in the container, and to be in the container is to be limited to its duration— to end when the container does. If we say that God is temporal, and mean by this that He is inside the container, we seem to indicate that He is as finite as everything else in the container. Again, the God of the Bible cannot be temporal in this sense. Unless we set aside our preconceptions of time as transience or as a

HOME PAGE 250

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

container, we will be blind to how the biblical authors understood God. So, we must compare our notions of time to other realities in which time plays a role.

3. What is Time? In this section, we will explore whether a broadening of traditional views of time may help us to understand the biblical view of God’s temporality. a. Time is Not a Thing. What is time? When we say, for instance, “table” we find no difficulty in pointing to the object named by that word, or the referent of “table.”The referent of the word “time” is not so easy to locate. We usually picture a clock or what a clock “measures.” Nevertheless, the word “time” does not name or refer to the clock, the movement, or its hands or digital readout. In fact, we always define time in reference to something else, as we are unable to locate its referent in reality. We identify time with the movement of the clock, but we cannot picture what it is we are measuring by the clock. The reason for this is simple: time is not “a thing,” but a quality that all things or realities have in common. Time is the basic characteristic of reality. Reality requires time, and time always co-appears as a quality of a real thing. b. Time “Co-Appears” With Things. To “co-appear” means to appear with another reality. Coappearing generally happens with qualities. For instance, “goodness” does not appear by itself. “Goodness” is a quality that we find, for instance, in people. The same can be said of colors, temperature, and the like. As a quality, time occurs simultaneously with the thing of which it is a quality or characteristic. In other words, time is co-given to us with the realities of which it is a characteristic. For example, a person may be tall, a rock may be solid, the sky may be blue— but all of them also have time as a characteristic, that is, each is temporal. Moreover, time does not apply equally to all things; all things will experience their temporality differently, relative to the nature of their individual being. We will

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

251

explore this last point more in a moment. c. Time Is Not a “Container.” Unlike qualities such as colors, characteristics, or virtues, which co-appear only with some realities, time co-appears with everything. Time is not a thing like a container within which reality takes place, such as when we put water (a thing) within a bucket (another thing); that is, time is not a thing in which all other things have their being. Our difficulty in defining time springs from our assumption that time is such a thing. Time never appears or is given to us as a “thing,” but co-appears with all things as a basic characteristic of their being. Things are not in time, but time is in things. Therefore, we cannot understand time as separate from everything else; instead, we can only understand time in its relationship with all things of which it is characteristic. The word “time”itself is a noun, but we should think of it as functioning like an adjective. d. Time As Past-Present-Future Flow If time is not a thing nor a container, what is it? It is an overall quality shared by everything we find in reality. Time is the quality by which real things exist within a past-present-future flow. At first glance, we have not advanced much. We have replaced the idea of “container” with the idea of “co-appearing,” but the notion of impermanence still lingers in our minds. This seems inescapable; we naturally associate temporal flow with transience. Is such association really unavoidable? Let us reexamine the idea of transience, but assuming time as an innate quality of being rather than a container. e. Time As Relative to Reality That time flows does not exhaust its meaning. However, without its flow, time would not exist. Transience, on the other hand, is not necessarily tied to the flow of time, but to a definition of limited duration. When we say that something is “transient,” we mean that such a reality has a limited temporal

HOME PAGE 252

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

duration. In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant pointed out that reason can conceive of the flow of time as either infinite or of limited duration. But even though time is a quality of all things, it does not apply equally to everything; instead it adapts itself to any given reality with which it coappears. All things are temporal, but different things and beings will experience time differently. For this reason, we do not have to think of time as strictly either infinite or limited. Time can be of limited or unlimited duration depending on which reality it is describing. A limited being will experience time as of limited duration; a limitless being will experience time as endless. Our understanding of time must be relative to whatever reality in which it coappears.

4. God’s temporal eternity. If “temporality” means being within a past-present-future flow, to say that God is temporal does not automatically imply that He is transient. Moreover, the replacement of the idea of time as a “container” with that of time as a quality of all things should change the way we understand God’s relationship with time. Those who insist on seeing time as a “container” superimpose a prior definition of time over God. We can overcome this approach only when we understand that time is relative to the nature and activity of the thing to which it applies. Those who realize this understand that our understanding of time does not dictate how God relates to time. On the contrary, as Scripture portrays it, God’s own nature dictates how God relates to time. Briefly put, the biblical revelation of God determines the meaning of time and not vice versa. Consequently, biblical writers in no way detract from God’s absoluteness when they depict Him acting within time. God can, without contradiction, both act within time and remain intransient. Clearly, Scripture’s portrait of a temporal God is not a logical contradiction.

§69. THE TEMPORAL GOD AS A HERMENEUTICAL

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

253

PRESUPPOSITION As we have studied, each model of revelation-inspiration must presuppose an understanding of the nature of God. Specifically, the process of revelation-inspiration itself assumes an interpretation of how God acts. Those acts depend on the nature of His being. And any attempt to understand God’s being assumes a basic interpretation of the nature of reality. This is where the historical-cognitive model departs from the hermeneutical presuppositions of the classical, modern, and evangelical models. Christianity has traditionally understood revelation-inspiration based on the notion that God and His acts are timeless, so we are being led down an extrabiblical path. Conversely, biblical thinking on God’s being and acts implies temporality. It is not so much the nature of God, but His actions that become direct hermeneutical presuppositions for revelation-inspiration. How are we to understand those acts?

1. The Temporality of God and the Limits of Revelation In this section, we are dealing not with divine activity overall, but with God’s activity within created time. Unlike divine time, created time is limited. Not only does it have a beginning and an end; its limitation affects its quality as well. As God’s being is unlimited and infinite, so is His time. Conversely, as created beings are limited and finite, so are their times. After all, time is a quality which applies to different realities according to their natures. God’s higher level of infinite temporality allows Him to act within the lesser level of created temporality. Conversely, finite human temporality can never reach or even imagine God’s infinite temporality. Although essentially different, God’s being and time are not so different from created beings and time that communication between them is impossible. The infinite Creator and finite creatures, different as they are, share in common, each in their own way, the pastpresent-future flow of reality. Because of their shared temporality, God can communicate directly with human beings, doing so by adapting His thoughts to the cognitive capabilities of human beings. Moreover, since according to the Bible God created

HOME PAGE 254

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

humans in His image, He gave them the necessary cognitive equipment to recognize and understand direct divine communication. While God and man are similar enough to allow communication at the human level, the vast differences warn us we will never fully understand God’s being and temporality. After all, if God is God, we should expect our knowledge of Him to be limited by our creatureliness and temporality, even knowledge He gives us directly through revelation.

2. Revelation and Inspiration From Below Because of his infinite temporality, God can enter the created history of our experience. In this adaptation, God reveals Himself from within the sequence of time, or “from below,” rather than the “from above” of His infinite temporality and being. If God reveals himself within our temporal experience, that self-imposed limitation means it is impossible for us to grasp God as He is in His infinite, transcendent being. For God to communicate to us directly, He has to speak a language lesser than his own— ours, finite to our being and our limited temporality. (We will say more on this when we cover human nature below.) If we are to understand Him clearly, He has to express his thoughts in a way that can be understood at face value. Thus, we do not need to translate what Scripture says into some deeper spiritual level having to do with God’s infinite time. If God speaks, He has taken care of any necessary translation in the process of adapting to our lower level. That in speaking, God has abandoned His own infinitude and is expressing Himself from below, within the flow of history, is clear from the very first verse of the Old Testament. Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In the New Testament, the Gospel of John opens with a similar statement: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”(1:1). Since God’s time has no beginning, both verses place God within created finite time. God’s thoughts are adapted in revelation to our spatiotemporal limitations. He does not reveal Himself from outside, but from inside the historical process he has created.

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

255

3. Revelation and Inspiration as Historical Process If God’s revelation is from below, within created time, that activity must follow the dynamics of human history. God reveals and inspires Scripture within the sequence of cause and effect in our spatiotemporal order. His infinite temporality and being mean that, as Creator, He functions in a manner so much different than ours as to be incomprehensible to us. We are unable to understand God on His infinite level, so He reveals himself to us on ours— the level of limited time and history. His direct revelation to us, by definition of “to us,” must and will always be shaped by the characteristics of our being, including our created temporality. The God of the Bible reveals Himself and His cognitive ideas through a historical process.

§70. TIME AND HUMAN NATURE We turn our attention now to an understanding of human nature— the second presupposition for the doctrine of revelation-inspiration. First we will review how the previous models understand human nature in relationship to time.

1. Time and Human Nature in the Classical and Evangelical Models As seen previously, the classical, evangelical, and modern models assume human nature is a composite of body and soul. The soul is conceived as a “spiritual” substance, based on categories from Greek philosophy. Though they have this idea of the soul in common, the modern model differs from the classical and evangelical models, based on its understanding of the soul’s capacity for reason and knowledge. The classical and evangelical models assume that the soul is the location of cognition, and that therefore revelation-inspiration happens at the level of the soul. The modern model, instead, believes that human cognition lies outside the soul. In classical thinking, timelessness properly belongs to God, while time properly belongs to material substances, such as our bodies. As a spiritual, immaterial, incorruptible substance, the soul is not temporal as material

HOME PAGE 256

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

things are, but it is not timeless as God is either. In the technical language of classical philosophy, the soul exists in aeviternity, a zone or dimension of reality between timelessness and time.2 The soul needs this intermediate state because of its direct relationship with the temporal body, while the timeless aspect of aeviternity allows the soul access to timeless realities. Moreover, Aquinas explains that human reason is a power the soul directly receives from God.3 To prepare the prophet, God elevates his or her natural, rational capabilities so they can reach the supernatural and timeless ideas of God.

2. Time and Human Nature in the Modern Model The modern model of revelation-inspiration makes no foundational changes in the classical notion of human nature. Its proponents believe in the existence of an immortal and incorruptible soul and understand its relation to the body much as the classical thinkers do. Consequently, human nature is still related to timelessness via the soul. However, proponents of the modern model believe that reason functions only within space and time. To them, true knowledge is acquired with no relationship to the soul, but only through the five senses of our material bodies. Knowledge cannot come from the supernatural realm, because only the timeless soul can contact a timeless God, and the soul is incapable of knowledge. Cognitive revelation is deemed impossible in the modern model. Without challenging the classical teaching on the soul, the modern model switched from a timeless to a temporal view of human knowledge. As explained earlier, this turn was not prompted by biblical teachings, but by changes in philosophical doctrine.

3. Time and Human Nature in Scripture The Bible neither teaches nor assumes the existence of an immortal soul. In Scripture, the word â&#x20AC;&#x153;soulâ&#x20AC;? refers to human nature in a variety of senses.4 But it never presents the soul as an entity separated from the body or merely

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

257

present in the body. In fact, according to the Bible, the “soul,” as understood by the classical, evangelical, and modern models of revelation-inspiration, simply does not exist. Men and women exist and possess a variety of characteristics, diversely grouped and described under words like body, soul, spirit, heart, or mind. These biblical categories do not describe specific parts or components of human nature, but human nature as a whole. Since biblical thinking does not support the classical notion of human nature as a soul-body composite, it does not endorse the notions of timelessness and aeviternity either. Instead, the Bible directs us to interpret human nature temporally, not only negatively by lending no support to the classical view, but positively by affirming the temporality of human beings. The Old Testament explicitly declares that God placed time within human beings.5 That hermeneutical assumption is implicit throughout the Old and New Testaments. Once a temporal understanding of human nature is tied to a temporal understanding of divine being and actions, we have the hermeneutical grounds for a new model of revelation-inspiration.

§71. KNOWLEDGE AND TIME If human nature is temporal, what about human knowledge? In other words, how are the cognitive processes involved in revelation-inspiration affected by this new understanding of human nature? To answer these questions, we need to find out whether Scripture supports a temporal view of human knowledge, and if so, what a temporal view of human knowledge involves.

1. A Scriptural Depiction of Human Knowledge Much as it does not directly address the temporal being of God, Scripture does not present an interpretation of human knowledge. The Bible writers had other things on their minds. But Scripture clearly assumes a temporal understanding of human knowledge. Without the immortality of the soul, the timeless view of human knowledge advanced by the classical model finds no support in Scripture.

HOME PAGE 258

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Therefore, the temporal-historical understanding of human knowledge flows from the fact that Scripture does not teach the immortality of the soul; instead, the temporal view of human nature implicit in Scripture (§70.3) naturally suggests a temporal-historic view of human knowledge. To appreciate, for instance, how Jesus used historical reason, we must first understand how it operates.

2. Historical Reason To understand how reason would operate in a historical fashion, let us review the structure of knowledge we discussed earlier (§24). In brief, knowledge operates whenever a subject, a person with cognitive capabilities, comes in contact with any given object. The relationship between the cognitive subject and the known object is the structure from which human knowledge always originates. a. Presuppositions of the Subject Within this structure, both the cognitive subject and the known object contribute to the formation of knowledge. In the subject’s mind are categories or ideas that allow him or her to form concepts and judgments. The difference between timeless and temporal understandings of reason revolve around the categories a person uses to form concepts and judge. If a person believes in the existence of a timeless soul within the subject, and that reason is the highest capacity of that soul, any categories presupposed by the subject’s soul in the generation of knowledge and judgments are timeless and universal. Because they are timeless, they always mean the same thing at all times. Because they are universal, they operate in all rational creatures everywhere. If reason is viewed in this way, rational knowledge will always retain the same meaning. In contrast, if a person believes that reason is part of the temporal, historical human subject rather than part of his or her soul, the categories presupposed by that subject in the generation of knowledge and the formulation of judgments are temporal and personal. Because they are

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

259

temporal, they mean different things at different times in history. Because they are personal, they mean different things to different people. If knowledge is generated by the reasoning of people with different categories of thinking in different places and at different times, knowledge itself will mean different things at different times and in different places. Where do these mental categories come from if they are not universal? They develop out of the historical experience of the subject, beginning with the culture to which he or she belongs. Any culture, no matter where or when it exists, has certain beliefs about knowledge; anyone who belongs to that culture is likely going to accept what his or her culture believes is true. In other words, that person— the cognitive subject— absorbs the content of his or her conceptual categories from his or her surroundings. Rarely are these ideas analyzed, criticized, or verified. b. The Primacy of the Object This conviction that human reason depends on culturally defined presuppositions is a hallmark of twenty-first-century postmodernism. Because the categories of reason rest on shifting historical perspectives, many postmodern thinkers conclude that all knowledge is relative to cultural development and private perspective of human beings. Nothing could be further from the truth— once one takes another look at historical reason. Important as they are, presuppositions are not the only items involved in historical reason. Information and ideas based on concrete facts and realities give historical reason an anchor against cognitive relativism. It is not the set of presuppositions we bring to the event of knowledge, but the objects we come to know that ultimately determine the content and veracity of historical knowledge. Thus, in an act of knowledge from the perspective of historical reason, the known object takes primacy over the presuppositions of the subject. This point, largely forgotten by euphoric postmoderns each embracing their own point of view, invalidates the notion that the truth about any object is relative to the perspective of the subject. The primacy of the object not only determines the accuracy of our knowledge about it, but if we are to know the object clinically and scientifically, it also has

HOME PAGE 260

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

the capacity to alter or refresh our presuppositions. Historical reason opposes the notion that presuppositions are based on the arbitrary cultural origins of the cognitive subject. Instead, presuppositions are concepts formed in our minds from previous encounters with a particular object. The content of our presuppositions, then, is always correctable as we compare it with the object from which we originally received it. c. The Primacy of Divine Revelation In Scripture, historical reason emphasizes not only the primacy of the object, but also the primacy of divine revelation. This means that God directly determines the cognitive contents of revelation and the presuppositions we need to understand them. God does not give us a list of presuppositions in the Bible. The presuppositions are implicit in the text, readily available to us as we read. As we learn in Scripture of God’s acts and revelations, we develop ideas about Him and His nature. As we return to the text again and again, these ideas are corrected, polished, confirmed, and used as presuppositions. These presuppositions— based on biblical, historical reason— are not the product of human imagination, but of direct divine revelation. d. Processing Data Historically Because of their temporality, human beings always exist in history. They literally “belong” to a specific historical situation— that is, to a culture and community. The subject’s ability to reason receives the objects and presuppositions necessary for its functioning from the surrounding culture and events. Their data and presuppositions originate in the wisdom of the community; in this sense, meanings are historically constituted. (We cannot say that in historical reason meanings are historically “conditioned,” as if there were another cause outside history determining their contents.) Moreover, reason itself forms its meanings through a historical process. Human reason does not reach its conclusions overnight, but requires time to obtain and process information. This is what it means for reason to operate

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

261

historically. As it experiences the present and opens itself to the future, reason gathers and stores new information within its memory. From this wealth of experience, the cognitive subject recognizes, interprets and evaluates new data. By reflecting on past experiences, the subject can recognize and interpret the notions required as presuppositions for understanding any given issue. By applying the correct presuppositions, historical reason can pierce more deeply and precisely into the meaning of reality— even divine reality— presented by supernatural revelations within space and time. Historical reason is a never-ending process of gathering and processing information, on a path to true knowledge which is never complete or exhaustive. This unending process is required by the temporality of both the subject and object in the structure of knowledge. Temporal human beings cannot grasp any matter completely in a single act of perception. On the contrary, all perception of reality is limited and partial. We do not know anything in a single mere instant. To understand anything, multiple acts of perception are required. The more complex the reality we are trying to understand, the longer and more complex the cognitive processes are. Historical reason is a process that never ends, but is always developing and searching for a more complete understanding of reality. To compound the issue, reality itself is temporal and undergoing change— further requiring that historical reason continue its process. In the timeless view of reality, any known object is always the same; a historical reality means that any known object is always changing. Perpetual change requires a continuous process of revision. Because the God of the Bible is the God of history, He always surprises us by doing new things. Consequently, as human reason becomes aware of the things of God, it must always be open to following divine initiative, revelations, and fulfilment of His promises. In other words, human reason must continuously revise its conclusions on the meaning of divine revelation. These revisions must be made based on the primacies of the object and of divine revelation.

3. Biblical Reason Scripture nowhere addresses the question of reason; it contains no explicit

HOME PAGE 262

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

declaration that reason functions historically. However, it references human knowledge and the mind in ways that provide additional insights into how the biblical writers understood reason. In this section, we will use only one example, in which Christ uses reason as a tool to explain the meaning of His mission to the disciples: the meeting between Jesus and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after the resurrection (Luke 24:13-32). The story is well known. Two unnamed disciples were traveling to Emmaus on the resurrection Sunday, discussing the sad events of the previous week, especially the crucifixion of Christ. A stranger— Jesus Himself, unrecognized— joined them, and asked about their conversation. The downcast disciples gave an accurate report of what had happened. They had all the correct information, but they completely misunderstood it— to the point where they did not even recognize the living Jesus right next to them. Then, Jesus said to them: “‘O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?’Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures”(Luke 24:25-27, NAU). This passage exemplifies the process of historical reasoning followed throughout Scripture by prophets and apostles. From their situation, the two travelers had the right data, but could not understand it because they were using the wrong presuppositions. They had hoped Jesus was going to redeem Israel (verse 21) and were crushed when He died. They were receiving the best revelatory data, but were not getting the revelation. Why? Because accurate knowledge of anything, including Jesus’ death, makes sense only with the right presuppositional framework. Aware of this fact of human knowledge, Jesus immediately directed them to the right presuppositions. Aware of how human reason operates, Jesus new that to understand the cross they needed to remember and apply the categories He had already revealed in the Old Testament writings. Another miracle would not unlock the meaning of the cross. Even drawing their eyes to Himself as a resurrected person would not have served his purpose; they might believe that He was alive. The point these two disciples could not understand was the revelation

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

263

of God’s love that had happened right before their eyes at Calvary. According to Luke’s report, these two disciples agreed with the public perception that Jesus was a prophet. It had not dawned on them that He was also God and that His death and (not yet comprehended) resurrection were the cause of their salvation. That is precisely what Christ needed to reveal to them. As we have studied, revelation is a matter of understanding, which requires the proper historical interaction of presuppositions and data. Here the data is clear— the events climaxing in Jesus’ death. Yet, what presuppositions would allow these disciples to understand the data correctly? By directing their minds to the writings of “Moses and all the prophets” (verse 27), Jesus used prior revelation as the presupposition for understanding the new revelatory data. New revelatory data does not become revelation until it is understood in its proper context. Until human reason makes those connections, revelatory data may be memorized, but not recognized for what it really is. Jesus used Old Testament revelations to bring home the new revelation about His own death and salvific mission. In so doing, He also gave us the key to how we should develop our theological paradigms. Revelation is not revelation until it is understood within the context of prior revelation. Isaiah recognized this principle when he commanded that all messages purporting to come from God should be tested according “to the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (8:20). Finally, Jesus clarified the revelation about his person and mission using presuppositions from prior, historical, revelatory teachings, not from a timeless cognitive framework. Based on this, we can safely assert that Jesus considered historical reasoning a necessary tool to reveal the meaning of His death to His own disciples. Because Jesus used historical reasoning with a clear revelatory goal, and the Old Testament commands us to test new revelatory messages using historical reasoning in the form of previous revelations, we can see that biblical revelation assumes historical reasoning.

HOME PAGE 264

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

§72. HISTORICAL REASON AS HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITION How a person understands human knowledge and reason determines how one interprets revelation-inspiration (see §10, §21-22). A new model of revelation-inspiration, then, requires a new presupposition of reason. Let us review our strategy. After identifying the presuppositions inherent to any model of revelation-inspiration, we questioned the various traditional versions of them. Do these interpretations come from Scripture? Are they compatible with Scripture? As we have studied, not only do the traditional understandings of divine and human nature not come from the Bible (§36.1, §47.2, §53), they also operate in stark opposition to how the biblical writers understood reality. Classical and modern philosophies understand God in a timeless sense; Scripture understands God in a temporal-historical sense (§6668). Likewise, classical and modern thought understands human nature to be timeless due to the immortality of the soul.6 Scripture, on the other hand, says nothing about a timeless soul and instead supports a temporal understanding of human nature and knowledge more akin to postmodern philosophical positions. If human reason operates historically, its role will make a significant difference to our new model of revelation-inspiration. Such a view harmonizes with and depends on a temporal-historical view of God (§69) and human nature. Both presuppositions stem from and complement the biblical picture of reality. If human nature and knowledge are not understood to be historical, the historical portrait of God in Scripture will always be forced to fit some nonhistorical pattern of understanding, as in the classical and evangelical models. Without the historical portrait of God, human nature is limited to history and cannot understand divine revelation cognitively— the modern model of revelationinspiration. How does a historical view of human reason impact the revelationinspiration of Scripture? We will look at four aspects, beginning with the zone of revelation-inspiration, and then exploring how historical reason affects the mode, limits, and nature of the revelation-inspiration process.

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

265

1. The Zone of Revelation-Inspiration Revelation and inspiration, we have argued, take place within the “zone” or sphere of human cognition and language (§21-22). Thus, the way we interpret knowledge is one of our primary presuppositions.

2. The Mode of Revelation Inspiration a. Mode Versus Content Revelation-inspiration as an event of knowledge in human language has two dimensions: content and mode. Content refers to what is said in Scripture– information, notions, and reasoning. Mode refers to the characteristics of the cognitive-linguistic vehicle used to express the contents of revelation. As an illustration, consider how you obtain the news of what is happening in the world. The content consists of the facts of the various news stories; the mode, how you get that information, whether that is by radio, television, website, newspaper, or even word of mouth. When it comes to the content and mode of revelation, we can distinguish between but never separate them. The mode belongs to revelationinspiration as much as its content. We have to make that distinction, however, to help us recognize the fundamentally human aspects of Scripture. We know that revelation-inspiration is a cognitive-linguistic phenomenon, so the knowledge and language used in Scripture is not divine, but human. At first glance, this affirmation may seem trite. After all, we know that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek— languages all spoken at some time in history by real people. When we examine the mode of knowledge and language, we discover three important aspects of reason as a hermeneutical presupposition. These aspects relate to the nature and characteristics of the knowledge and language of the Bible. b. Mode: Human, Not Divine Even though it seems obvious, we must emphasize that the knowledge and

HOME PAGE 266

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

language of Scripture are human rather than divine; this is essential to the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration. As we studied, according to the doctrine of Scripture, God is its originator (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21; see also ยง18-19). However, the phenomena of Scripture make it clear that revelation-inspiration took place within the human mode of knowledge. Therefore, we should not expect to find in Scripture perfect expression, but occasional imperfections. Those imperfections one might expect from the human mode of knowing and communicating, however, do not extend to the content of Scripture. Perfection of content and imperfection of mode are not incompatible. c. Mode: General Characteristics of Human Knowledge While we cannot explore the mode of human knowledge exhaustively here we will consider four of its general characteristics. Human knowledge is limited in reach, partial in scope, imperfect in accuracy, and relative in objectivity. By comparison, the divine mode of knowledge is unlimited, complete in reach, perfect in accuracy, and absolute in objectivity. Human knowledge is limited because it can never fully comprehend any given object with one cognitive act. We develop information and ideas through a succession of complementary cognitive acts. Because this process is ongoing, it gives us only approximations, never exhaustive knowledge. This limitation is also characteristic of human language. No word, sentence, or study can fully exhaust any single truth, presenting instead limited glimpses of truth. Only the divine mode of knowledge can fully comprehend in a single act the full truth of each created reality. Human knowledge is partial in scope because it cannot reach the full range of truth about all reality. Humanity has only limited access to things in the present, a partial and imperfect memory of past realities, and only a vague view of the future. The partiality of human knowledge forces us to rely on information and ideas obtained by other human beings as limited and fallible as we are. To make sense of anything, we must follow useful, but imperfect patterns of human logic that are not completely reliable. The divine mode of knowledge, conversely, reaches all things in the present, retains a

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

267

perfect memory of the past, and has a full knowledge of the future. Because of the completeness of his knowledgeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; omniscienceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; God does not rely on information gathered by sources other than Himself. Human knowledge is accurate only by approximation. Ideas must always be open to correction, fine-tuning, and criticism as we constantly return to the realities those ideas describe. Human language is particularly inaccurate. Several words may mean the same thing. A single word may have a variety of unrelated meanings. The meaning of words may change according to their position in the sentence or the place and time in which they are used. Full accuracy belongs only to the divine mode of knowledge. Finally, human knowledge can reach objective truth only in a degree relative to its limited reach, partial scope, and approximate accuracy. Only the divine mode of knowledge can access the full truth about everything, due to its unlimited reach, total scope, and exact accuracy. These characteristics give us a summary of what we mean by the mode of human knowledge and its imperfection in comparison with the divine mode. But would not divine involvement in revelation-inspiration have to work within the limitations of the human knowing and writing? Whatever the divine intervention in revelation-inspiration might have been, it did not modify the human modes of knowledge and writing; that is clear from even a superficial reading of the Bible. As we interpret the process of revelationinspiration, we have to factor in the human modes of knowledge and language present in the work of the prophet.

3. The Historical Processing of Revelation-Inspiration As we have said, there is no scriptural teaching on how reason operated in the production of Scripture. However, since Scripture consists of writing, and writing is an expression of our rational capabilities, we must assume that reason was present in the process of revelation-inspiration. To continue developing a model of revelation-inspiration, then, we need to come to an understanding of how the cognitive faculties of the biblical writer worked. How did prophets and apostles develop their thoughts and writings? However reason operated in their minds, we must be able to harmonize it

HOME PAGE 268

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

with the expression in their thinking and writing. How we interpret the way human knowledge works must be grounded and compatible with human nature; according to Scripture, that nature, together with its ability to reason, is historical (§70.3). The historical processing of data takes place as biblical writers understand, select, integrate, and organize new revealed information. Their principles of selection and integration, based on previous divine revelation, allow them to understand and categorize the new data. This activity is expressed in Isaiah’s principle “to the Law and to the Testimony” (Isaiah 8:20) and in the pattern of reasoning Jesus used on the road to Emmaus. As we will see later, the historical processing of fresh, new revelation within the historical-cognitive model belongs to the essence of revelation-inspiration.

4. Historical Reason and Historical Revelation: Inner Harmony The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration will be based on the presupposition that biblical writers thought and wrote according to a historical view of knowledge. As explained above, reason in the Bible obtains its information and ideas from spatiotemporal realities and events (§70.3), selects the presuppositions or categories necessary for understanding from past revelations (§71.2), and processes its data following historical patterns of understanding (§71.2-3). The historical-cognitive model will be based not on the historicity of reason, but on the historicity of God and His revelation in space and time. The Scriptural portrait of a temporal-historical God sets the stage for overcoming the noncognitive nature of the modern model. Because God’s nature is temporal, He can reveal Himself, His will, and His ideas directly to historical human reason. Revelation is therefore simultaneously historical and cognitive. Biblical reason is grounded on the historical revelation of God. In Scripture, reason is not independent but proceeds in openness to divine revelation. In short, our presupposition of human nature is directly conditioned and shaped by our presupposition of divine nature and actions.

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

269

§73. REVIEW • The temporal nature of God is self-evident in Scripture. In a negative sense, Scripture does not provide any evidence for the notion of a timeless God. In a positive sense, it does portray God acting directly and historically within the causal order of nature and history. In the Bible, God is purely temporal. • Divine Acts: “within” time, not “in” time In the earlier models, God is timeless and can act “in” time— that is, God’s timeless action reaches time in an instantaneous present. In the Bible, God acts from “within” time— that is, within the causal order of the historical continuum.

• What God’s temporality is not. God’s temporality does not limit his being in any way, but describes the dynamic nature of His life. Consequently, God does not experience time either as transience or as a container. While human beings do experience time as transience, the notion of time as a container is a common misconception that applies neither to God nor to human beings. • God’s temporality according to the Bible. Time is not a thing, quality, or idea we can define on our own and then apply to God. If we did, we would be applying our own limited experience of time to God. Instead, God Himself defines divine time. Consequently, we only have limited glimpses of what time means to God. The way Scripture speaks of God’s redemptive acts and the incarnation of Christ demonstrates that the divine being experiences the very essence of time as past, present and future. • God’s temporal eternity. God’s eternity does not depend on the nature of time, but on His own

HOME PAGE 270

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

nature. Consequently, He defines His own relationship with time. Since he is an eternal being, the succession of time does not limit him. Whatever the dynamics of God’s existence are, we know according to Scripture that God’s eternal temporality means at the very least that He has no beginning and no end. • God’s temporality as a presupposition for direct, cognitive revelation. God’s temporality is a presupposition necessary for direct communication with historically conceived human beings. Only by directly sharing in (and without being limited by) our past, present, and future experience can God’s condescension take place and cognitive revelation reach the mind directly.

• God’s temporality as a presupposition for revelation-inspiration: “from below.” God’s temporality places His perspective in revelation “from below,”that is, within the historical flow of events. In other words, the content of God’s revelation does not come “from above,” that is, a perspective of timelessness. God creates the meanings of revelation historically. • God’s temporality as a presupposition for revelation-inspiration: a historical process of divine acts. God’s temporality implies that revelation-inspiration takes place as a succession of divine, historical acts within the flow of space and time. • The historical nature of human beings in scripture Biblical thinking does not subscribe to the immortality of the soul and its imperfect timelessness (only God has perfect timelessness). The Bible presents human nature as a holistic ensemble of many components and activities flowing within space and time. • Human temporality as a presupposition for human knowledge.

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

271

Since human beings are temporal in the absolute sense of excluding the existence of an immortal, timeless soul, their cognitive activities must also be temporal. • Historical reason draws its data and presuppositions from the realm of space and time. Historical reason depends on presuppositions that come from historical data and events. This contrasts sharply with classical reason, where the presuppositions and conceptual categories are derived from a timeless realm. • Historical reason gives priority to the object. This means that presuppositions are not subject to the random whims of human imagination, but from careful consideration of the objects to which they relate. • Historical reason in Scripture gives priority to prior divine revelation. When historical reason works as a tool in divine revelation, it draws its hermeneutical presuppositions from prior divine revelations about the subject matter to which it relates. • Processing data through historical reason. By belonging to a concrete historical situation and culture, historical reason selects the presuppositions it needs from historical data. Moreover, it operates by continually gathering and evaluating information about reality. Historical reason finds truth, but always in a manner open to further perfection. • Christ used historical reasoning. Although Scripture does not explicitly describe how the human reason of its writers functioned, Jesus left us a clear example of the historical operation of reason in Scripture. On the way to Emmaus, the resurrected Jesus used past revelation to help his disciples understand the new revelatory data of his own death.

HOME PAGE 272

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

• Content and mode of revelation-inspiration. The content of revelation is comprised of the information, ideas, and issues that biblical authors wrote about. The mode of revelation is the cognitive-linguistic vehicle, with all its characteristics, through which the contents were transmitted. • The mode of revelation as characteristics of its human vehicle. The human mode of knowledge is limited in reach, partial in scope, imperfect in accuracy, and relative in objectivity. By comparison, the divine mode of knowledge— to which we have no access— is unlimited, complete in reach, perfect in accuracy, and absolute in objectivity. • The human mode of knowledge as a presupposition of revelationinspiration. Because human knowledge and writing are the vehicles by which God’s truth has been given to us, the knowledge present in Scripture is of the human mode. Due to its divine origin, the truth of revelation is perfect, while the cognitive-linguistic vehicle in which it is expressed is imperfect. We can distinguish between the content and mode of revelationinspiration for the sake of analysis, but we cannot separate them in practice, for example in exegesis. The divinely-originated content of Scripture is perfect, but shares in the imperfections of its cognitivelinguistic vehicle. • Historical reason as a presupposition of revelation-inspiration. Because Scripture was given in human thought and language, we have to assume that historical reason was operative as the contents of the Bible were created. The biblical writers processed their data historically as they understood, selected, integrated and organized new revealed information and ideas. To do this, they applied to the new data categories for understanding, principles of selection, and integrative patterns all derived from previous divine revelations.

HOME PAGE BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

273

• Historical reason and God’s revelation: inner harmony. In the process of revelation-inspiration, historical reason derives its information and ideas from the spatiotemporal revelation of God; selects the presuppositions or categories for understanding from prior episodes of revelation-inspiration; and processes its data, all following the pattern of God’s redemptive activities in space and time.

ENDNOTES 1

For information about the biblical view of God as temporal, see my A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 10 (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1983), chap. 3; cf. John E. Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998). 2

According to Aquinas, aeviternity is a subdivision of eternity and, therefore, is not involved in time. The being of aeviternal things “neither consists in change, nor is the subject of change; nevertheless they have change annexed to them either actually, or potentially” (Summa Theologicae, Ia. 10.5). The changes that are “annexed” to the soul include choice, intelligence, affections, and places (ibid.). Apparently the being of the soul is timeless, but its life tends toward temporality. The idea of annexation reinforces the idea that the soul exists timelessly, but is able to act within temporality. Aquinas asserts that since the soul will have a vision of glory, it will have a share in eternity (ibid., obj. 1). In the end, timelessness properly belongs to God and only in a derivative manner to the soul. Of course, the annexation of the temporal characteristics mentioned above are due to the Aristotelean monism on which Aquinas builds. The soul has temporal

HOME PAGE 274

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

annexations because it has been designed by creation to function in the body. For this study, however, we must remember that in the classical model, the intellect operates in order to reach timeless truths. In patria, that is in heaven, the soul will be freed from bodily limitations and will have life exclusively in eternity. 3

Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia. 79.4

For a summary introduction to the ways Scripture uses the concept of the soul, see Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny (Berrien Springs: Biblical Perspectives, 1997), 39-154. 5

“He created everything beautiful in its time; he also put eternity in their heart(s), without which man does not find the work that God made from the beginning to the end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11, my translation). 6

The modern model, in spite of its acceptance of the immortality of the soul, leans toward a temporal understanding of human nature. This leaning flows from the emphasis on the historical limitations of human knowledge as historical consciousness (§47.2.b).

HOME PAGE

14. METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS

The need for and creation of the historical-cognitive model rests on three pillars. First, previous models have not satisfactorily explained the origin of Scripture in a way that accounts for both the Bible’s teaching about itself and its phenomena (Chapters 8, 10, and 11). Second, postmodernity has thrown a mantle of suspicion and relativity over the philosophical bases of those models (Chapters 9 and 12). Finally, to be faithful to basic scholarly procedure, we must examine the object of our study— Scripture— on its own terms. We have decided to start with the Bible itself to find the hermeneutical presuppositions on which we are building the new model (Chapter 13). We have already begun its construction by discussing the philosophical framework that makes the historical-cognitive model possible. In Chapter 12, we became aware of the revolution that took place in postmodern philosophy. That philosophy has deconstructed the classical and modern philosophical syntheses from which Christian theology historically has drawn its hermeneutical presuppositions. The next question is this: if philosophy has changed its teachings yet again, why should Christian theologians return to it for another theological framework that someday will be outdated? In Chapter 13, we unearthed what is probably the best-kept secret in the history of theology: Scripture supplies its own interpretive principles. The writers of Scripture were master theologians. Christian theology needs neither the classical nor modern interpretations, and never has.

HOME PAGE METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS

277

These two realizations enable the historical-cognitive model to use postmodern hermeneutical insights to build its hermeneutical presuppositions on the Bible. Thus, the historical-cognitive model remains faithful not only to the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture, but also to the biblical understanding of God and human natureâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; the basic presuppositions needed for understanding Scripture. It so happens that the historical-cognitive model operates within postmodern deconstruction-construction dynamics, and searches for truth along temporal-historical interpretation of Scripture and reality. In this chapter, we will briefly discuss some methodological matters for the new model, something we must do because we are engaged in a systematic construction. In Section 2, we were not constructing the classical, modern, and evangelical models, but describing and evaluating them. Consequently, we chose a tool appropriate to the task, the model methodology (Chapter 7). As our goal changes, however, so must the tools we use. Before considering the historical-cognitive model any further, then, we must survey the road ahead. In other words, we need to look at the broad shape of the systematic approach we will use in the following chapters. These are the basic points. First, we will focus on the interpretive goal of our study. Then we will reflect on the relative originality of the historical-cognitive model. Next, we will have a preliminary look at how revelation will be understood in the model. After this, we will review the problem that all models of revelation-inspiration attempt to understand: the dual authorship of Scripture. Subsequently, we will study the general hermeneutics biblical writers used in writing Scripture. Finally, we will briefly discuss how all models of revelationinspiration, including the historical-cognitive model, develop from a rational, relative understanding of hermeneutical presuppositions.

Â§74. INTERPRETIVE AIM Our goal in this study is to understand the cognitive-linguistic origin of Scripture. This must be kept constantly in mind as we develop the historical-cognitive model as an alternative to earlier models. We are not, however, trying to develop a complete doctrine of revelation-inspiration. We will attempt only to outline a

HOME PAGE 278

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

model. As we discussed earlier, models only describe general patterns of explanation; in practice, these patterns take various concrete forms in the process of developing complete doctrines or teachings (§33-34). That said, we will introduce the foundations for a doctrinal treatment of the origin of Scripture. You will remember this approach from our discussions of the classical, evangelical, and modern models. Our exploration of the historical-cognitive model will cover all the basic aspects involved in revelation-inspiration, but the door remains open for further development of the historical-cognitive model into a complete doctrinal exposition. This new model is based on presuppositions presented in the Bible itself. Thus, we will assume that as Scripture implies, reality is temporal and historical rather than timeless as the previous models asserted. On that basis, the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration is not only biblical, but postmodern.

§75. ORIGINALITY? Since the Bible says “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9), I am reluctant to claim originality for this model. While this particular expression of it is new, the historical-cognitive model may be defined as a systematization of a variety of ideas espoused by Christians throughout history. Since these views did not fit generally accepted philosophical presuppositions, they never gained acceptance or systematic expression in leading theological circles. Now that the rise of postmodernism has undermined those old presuppositions, the church is becoming willing to consider alternate patterns of explanation thus far considered taboo by established theological traditions. In a sense, the historical-cognitive model expresses in a technical, systematic way the view of revelation-inspiration that arises from a naive reading of Scripture. Any originality is in its theoretical and systematic coherence.

HOME PAGE METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS

279

§76. PRIMACY OF REVELATION OVER INSPIRATION Before we immerse ourselves in a new interpretation of revelation, let us consider a distinctive feature of this model. This point offers a valuable perspective into how the historical-cognitive model works. In their interpretation of the Bible’s origin, the models surveyed so far have emphasized the process of writing. After all, Scripture exists because somebody wrote it. Revelation is always considered by the other models, but invariably plays a secondary role to inspiration. Let us review the other models on this point.

1. Classical and Evangelical Models In both the classical and evangelical models, revelation extends to only some parts of Scripture. Most of the Bible consists of information and ideas the prophets and apostles obtained from natural sources and which was available to their contemporaries. But since all of the Bible must be considered to be of divine origin, these models must emphasize inspiration rather than revelation. God is not responsible for all the ideas in Scripture, but He is responsible for choosing every word.

2. The Modern Model The modern model developed as the theoretical side to the historical-critical method of exegesis. That method assumed Scripture came to existence just like any other ancient document— that is, it was written by a human being without divine aid. The Bible writers were prompted to write by an existential, noncognitive experience. Consequently, the modern idea of revelation leaves the origins of the biblical content to the cultural originated knowledge of biblical writers When biblical writers tried to express in words the feeling they got from the encounter, they drew from natural sources and human reflections to explain what happened. Revelation itself had no content at all, so according to the modern model, inspiration has total primacy.

HOME PAGE 280

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

3. The Historical-Cognitive Model The doctrine of Scripture tells us not only that “all Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16), but also that God “spoke long ago to the fathers through the prophets in many portions and in many ways”(Hebrews 1:1). The first text tells us that God is behind all Scripture. The second tells us that in the development of Scripture, God did not always act in exactly the same way. To know how God worked, we must consider His involvement in the phenomena of Scripture. This will enable us to understand how divine action functioned in the origination of Scripture. Following the doctrine of Scripture, the historical-cognitive model departs from tradition by prioritizing revelation over inspiration. Scripture in its entirety originates from the process of revelation. The primacy of revelation over inspiration translates into a more extensive and detailed treatment of the former and less extensive for the latter. While the other models revolved around their view of inspiration (writing), the historical-cognitive model revolves around the notion of revelation. The primacy of the process of revelation over the process of inspiration requires a careful rethinking of revelation as it relates to the origin of Scripture. We must understand how Scripture originated through divine revelation and was written by divine inspiration. We can broaden the reach of revelation to the entire Bible only by broadening the notion of revelation itself. How, then, do we broaden the notion of revelation? How do we know how broad or narrow the revelation was that gave us the Bible? The answer is simple. We can obtain our goal by integrating relevant data from both the doctrine and the phenomena of Scripture. We are ready now to consider the notion of revelation.

§77. THE QUESTION OF DUAL AUTHORSHIP How did the contents of Scripture come to be? We know that other books are

HOME PAGE METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS

281

the products of human cognitive and linguistic processes. If this is all there is to it, Scripture obviously results from human cognitive and linguistic activities. A doctrine of revelation-inspiration would becomes unnecessary. What complicates this picture is the fact that Scripture presents God as the author of its contents (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21; see also §18 and §19). From this biblical conviction arises the problem of revelationinspiration motivating our study. The problem of revelation springs from two apparently contradictory kinds of evidence, both flowing from the fact of revelation-inspiration. On one hand, the Bible claims to be as a whole a direct expression of the wisdom and will of God. Yet on the other hand, Scripture itself admits that human beings did the actual writing. Whatever the origin of the Bible, we must keep in mind this simultaneous, dual authorship. The goal of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration is to clarify this problem. Of course, dual authorship cannot mean the same thing it does when applied to books written exclusively by human beings. Previously, we suggested considering the dual authorship of Scripture under the ghostwriter analogy (cf. §19.8). In this chapter we must clarify how it took place. What did God as original author do, and what did the human authors as ghostwriters do? How did ideas, information, and words emerge from the unique dynamics of this relationship?

§78. THE HERMENEUTICAL STRUCTURE OF REVELATION Remember, we are using the notion of “revelation”in the restricted sense, that is, to how the information, ideas, and teachings in Scripture came to the minds of biblical writers. Somehow, the dual authorship of the Bible generated its content, beginning with revelation. Revelation is never an isolated or arbitrary action of God; He has to reveal to someone. Revelation always takes place through a concrete, cognitive relationship between God and the biblical writer.

1. Hermeneutics in the Process of Revelation

HOME PAGE 282

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

The historical-cognitive model works with the postmodern principle that all knowledge involves an interpretation. At the outset of our study, we explained the revolutionary conviction that all human knowledge begins with presuppositions, and that presuppositions are always relative to some historical subject, such as community, culture, or events. Therefore, no two human beings will understand any one text in exactly the same way (§2.5.c). Consequently, the field of hermeneutics applies not only to theologians searching for an understanding of revelation-inspiration, but also to that process itself. Specifically, we need to clarify the concrete, hermeneutical presuppositions of the biblical writers through which they understood God’s cognitive disclosures, and how those presuppositions shaped the contents of Scripture. But, first, we must describe the hermeneutical structure of the revelation process itself.

2. Revelation as “Dialogical” Activity As just noted, revelation always results from the joint activity of God and prophets. The classical and evangelical models understand the inspiration of Scripture to be a joint activity, called “concurrence” by some evangelical theologians. However, none of them recognize a joint divine-human activity in revelation. Proponents of the historical-critical method understand revelation to be a joint non-cognitive encounter. In the historical-cognitive model, revelation takes place as a subjectobject relationship following a “dialogical” dynamic or form. As he receives divine communication, the prophet performs the role of subject. The contents of the communication are the object. Revelation— the content the prophet will eventually write down as Scripture— results from what God and the prophet each bring to this cognitive event. But how does God communicate?

3. Divine Communication as Meaningful Forms In the historical-cognitive model, divine communications are not God’s own ideas, as in the classical and evangelical models, nor are they merely His own divine being as in the modern model. Instead, divine communication occurs

HOME PAGE METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS

283

through “meaningful forms.” Here we use the word “meaningful” in a technical sense indicating that the forms signify specific ideas, or meanings— they are “meaning-full.” According to Emilio Betti, a mind initiating communication produces a variety of such “ meaningful forms.”1 When the mind in question is human, these forms may range “from fleeting speech to fixed documents and mute remainders, from writing to chiffres [encoded messages] and to artistic symbol, from articulate language to figurative or musical representation, from explanation to active behaviour, from facial expression to ways of bearing and types of character.”2 The contents of Scripture, however, are cognitively communicated by God. Since God’s mind is capable of functioning not only according to its own divine patterns but also according to the lower levels of human beings, we may logically assume that any meaningful form that can be produced by a human mind can also be created by the divine mind.3 (Of course, because of his divine nature, God is able to create meaningful forms in patterns beyond the range of human cognition and action. Even then, however, God would be producing these forms within the realm in which human cognition works— historically, within space and time.) Revelation therefore assumes that God condescends to work at the level of human, historical cognition.4

4. Human Reception of God’s Meaningful Forms Still, God’s creation of meaningful forms is not the only component of revelation’s cognitive content. The meaningful form must be received and processed by the human being. God produces the meaningful forms within the limited range of human reason, so the human being does not have to translate them from a divine into a human field. Moreover, the contents of revelation are always characterized by the interaction between God’s generated meaningful forms and their reception by the prophet. God contributes meaningful forms and the prophet contributes the interpretive, hermeneutical patterns for understanding them. The contents of Scripture, then, integrate knowledge between God’s generation of meaningful forms and their interpretation through the prophet’s hermeneutical presuppositions. This is how both God and the prophet

HOME PAGE 284

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

contribute to the content of revelation. We will now examine the participation of each in greater detail.

§79. HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS AT WORK You have probably noticed by now that we are operating under a specific set of hermeneutical presuppositions. The modern model of revelation would reject everything we just said, for example (§78). No theologian following the modern model would dare to suggest that revelation always takes place as a concrete, cognitive relationship between God and the biblical writer. For modern thinkers, revelation is never a cognitive act on the part of either God or human beings; it is an emotional contact at best. The difference, of course, is that both the modern and the historical-cognitive views must presuppose certain issues— and since they presuppose directly opposite views of divine and human nature, their interpretations of revelation directly contradict. Why is it that what is obvious for one model is not for the other? Why is it that alternate models adopt completely opposite views about the same thing? The answer is simple. Each view must presuppose previous definitions about related issues. The definitions of these issues can be, and actually are, understood in different, even contradictory, terms. The modern and the historical-cognitive models disagree on the notion of revelation-inspiration, then, because they define the question of divine and human natures in divergent ways. In Chapters 9, 12, and 13, we considered how proponents of the modern and historical-cognitive models understand divine and human nature. If they are unaware that their views depend on their presuppositions, practitioners of these models may consider our analysis in these chapters unnecessary. But our study is based on the fact that we must understand hermeneutical presuppositions to understand revelation-inspiration. In fact, practitioners of different models of interpretation cannot even communicate until they are aware of the presuppositions behind their respective theological positions. Our hermeneutical presuppositions are based on taking what the Bible says at face value; as we outlined in Chapter 13, revelation in the Bible is by definition cognitive.

HOME PAGE METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS

285

In that respect, the historical-cognitive model has some ground in common with the classical and evangelical models. The latter two, however, understand the cognitive nature of revelation much differently. This difference springs from a substantial disagreement on divine and human nature. As we have noted, the classical and evangelical views understand the natures to be timeless, while our new model understands them to be temporal. Why should we accept one interpretation of the hermeneutical presuppositions over the others? The answer rests on the phenomenological principle, in which we interpret things according to themselves, or on their own terms. While the classical, evangelical, and modern models build their views on extrabiblical philosophy, the historical-cognitive model makes a conscious effort to take its presuppositions about Scripture from Scripture itself. Consequently, the historical-cognitive model seems to have a better way of integrating all the data relevant to the doctrine of revelationinspiration— that is, the doctrine and phenomena of the Bible. This fact does not make the other models contradictory, groundless, or irrational. However, it demonstrates the soundness of the historical-cognitive model’s presuppositional ground. The final test is how it integrates the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture. This will become evident as we further describe the model.

§80. REVIEW • A model, not a doctrine. Our presentation in Chapter 15 will not be a complete doctrinal development, but a brief summary of the general characteristics of the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration. We will have to omit many details for the sake of clarity. • The historical-cognitive model is only relatively original. The historical-cognitive model we will analyze in the following chapters is not

HOME PAGE 286

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

a unique idea. In fact, many of its aspects were already present in previous models. The process of going beyond previous models must include holding on to the aspects we found helpful. Those ideas accurately based on the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture we will systematically integrate using biblical hermeneutical presuppositions. • Primacy of revelation over inspiration. The historical-cognitive model emphasizes the process of revelation. Revelation is the primary divine-human action behind the dual authorship of Scripture. Inspiration polishes the revealed contents in the process of oral or written communication. Inspiration is thus subordinated to revelation. • Dual authorship. On one hand, Scripture claims to be a direct expression of the wisdom and will of God. On the other hand, Scripture itself admits human beings performed the actual writing. All models of revelation-inspiration attempt to answer this dual-authorship problem. • Hermeneutics in revelation. The historical-cognitive model assumes that the process of revelation integrated the hermeneutical presuppositions of biblical writers. Where did they get those presuppositions? What were they? • Revelation as a divine-human dialogue. The historical-cognitive model understands the dual authorship of Scripture to take place as a divine-human “dialogue” at the level of revelation rather than as a “concurrence” within inspiration. We should not conceive of God as operating through the Holy Spirit to miraculously guide the writing of the prophet. Instead, God uses a communicative or dialogical pattern in which divine and human agencies interact within the spatiotemporal flow of history. • Divine communication in meaningful forms. Dialogue takes place as communication between two persons. It can

HOME PAGE METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS

287

consist of speech, written documents, secret symbols, art, music, behavior, posture, or facial expression.5 We refer to all these means of communication as “meaningful forms.” God generates the contents of Scripture through meaningful forms within human history. The historicalcognitive model begins by identifying which meaningful forms God chose to communicate with the prophets. • Divine-human dialogue generated the content of Scripture. The contents of revelation are always the result of the reception of God’s meaningful forms by the prophet. The contents of revelation always result from a harmonious integration of knowledge stemming from God and the prophet. In other words, God contributes meaningful forms and the prophet contributes the hermeneutical patterns for understanding them. • Models build on hermeneutical presuppositions. Like the classical and evangelical models, the historical-cognitive model understands revelation as cognitive. But because they disagree on divine and human nature, what they mean by cognitive communication is also different. While the classical view understands both God and human nature in a timeless fashion, the historical-cognitive model understands them temporally.

ENDNOTES 1

Emilio Betti explains that “ meaningful forms” (sinnhaltige Formen) are “to be understood in a wide sense as an homogeneous structure in which a number of perceptible elements are related to one another and which is suitable for preserving the character of the mind that created it or that is embodied in it” (Hermeneutics as the General Methodology of the Geisteswissenschaften, 54). In his groundbreaking treatise on interpretation, Betti refers to “ meaningful forms” as “forma rappresentativa.” “Forma” is understood in the most general way as “di rapporto unitario di elementi sensibili, idoneo a serbare l’impronta di chi l’ha foggiato o di chi lo incarna (es.: il viso di una persona)”[“of the unitary relations of the sensory elements suitable to keep the

HOME PAGE 288

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

imprint of that which has formed it or of that which incarnated it (eg. the face of a person)].” While “rappresentativa” is understood “nel senso che attraverso la forma debba rendersi a noi riconoscibile, facendo appello alla nostra sensibilità e intelligenza, un altro spirito diverso dal nostro e tuttavia intimamente affine al nostro”[“in the sense that through the form it must render itself recognizable to us, calling on our own sensitivity and intelligence, a different spirit from ours and still intimately connected to our spirit.”] (Teoria Generale della Interpretazione [Milano: Dott. A. Giuffrè, 1990], 62) Translation mine. 2

Betti, Hermeneutics as the General Methodology of the Geisteswissenschaften, 53. See also idem, Teoria Generale della Interpretazione, 60. 3

The modern model recognizes that revelation is an act “from mind to mind.” Yet in revelation, God does not act within the human level of cognition. The mind-to-mind encounter is not “a body of information concerning certain things about which we might otherwise be ignorant” or “information about God, but the very God Himself”(Jack W. Provonsha, “Revelation and History,” AUSS 2 [1964]: 111-112). See also Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:241. 4

The concept of God’s condescension is not new. For an exploration of this idea in the context of the doctrine of revelation-inspiration, see Bernard Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 31-52. 5

53.

Betti, Hermeneutics as the General Methodology of the Geisteswissenschaften,

HOME PAGE

15. GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

We have covered all the necessary introductory ground and at last are ready to explore the broad contours of the historical-cognitive model. This model emphasizes revelation, which takes place through what we have termed dialogical activity between God and the human writers (§78.2); now we must explore how each agency operated in that process. In this chapter, we will identify God’s leading intervention in revelation. In Chapter 16, we will consider the human author’s role. Finally in Chapter 17, we will present the main patterns of dialogue through which the divine and human agencies produced Scripture. In this chapter, then, as we explore the aspects of God’s contributions to revelation, we will look at the general modes of divine activity and the sources or means of revelation he employed to communicate with biblical writers.

§81. MODES OF DIVINE ACTIVITY Divine communication takes place through the production of meaningful forms. Traditionally, Christianity has identified revelation with only those forms which are supernaturally originated. In this view, God did not create the meaningful forms through natural processes; neither could the biblical writers have altered those forms as they received them from God. The

HOME PAGE 290

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

historical-cognitive model allows each of these possibilities their proper place in the framework of revelation.

1. Divine Activity The broad subject of divine activity is limited, for our purposes, to the idea of providence. This term is “concerned with God’s action in our world, and with how, according to Scripture, that activity is carried out.”1 Divine providence has been interpreted in various ways. The historicalcognitive model agrees with the classical and evangelical views that God acted through providence in a historical process of revelation-inspiration. But the classical and evangelical views assume a view of providence based on the timelessness of God, whereas the historical-cognitive model assumes that God’s being is temporal, not limited to created time but compatible with it. Recently, several evangelical theologians have raised their voice against the classical interpretation of providence in a view known as “Open Theism.” Their position is similar to that of this book— that God is temporal, not timeless. Consequently, John Sanders and others have come to view providence in a similar sense as well.2 This open view understands God’s activity as the Bible depicts it, from inside the temporal flow of created time rather than from outside as in the classical and traditional evangelical views. In the historical-cognitive model, God creates the meaningful forms within time to communicate them to the prophet in revelation. God’s providential activities, of which the production of meaningful forms is one example, can operate in either an “open” or “stealth” mode.

2. The “Open” Mode of Divine Activity Anyone who has heard Bible stories knows about the supernatural or “miraculous”mode of divine activity— biblical miracles. When God’s action interrupts the flow of natural cause and effect, we say He has performed a miracle. Generally, God chooses to perform miracles in a quiet way without external signs, while on some occasions they are accompanied by extraordinary external manifestations. A cancer patient who suddenly

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

291

recovers after years of prayer by her church is an example of a quiet miracle, while the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles at Pentecost in Acts 2 was a miracle accompanied by great wonders. In revelation, God occasionally generates meaningful forms through this “open-miraculous” mode of operation, with or without external signs.

3. The “Stealth” Mode of Divine Activity God’s actions do not always break the laws of nature and history. But when he works within those laws, the activity cannot be perceived by human beings. For instance, during His incarnation, Christ generally acted within the laws of nature and history. His disciples only rarely perceived his divinity directly, such as at the Transfiguration or after the Resurrection. Most of the time, they observed Christ operating within the laws of cause and effect, so they perceived and related to Him as to a fellow human being. Christ’s divinity, however, was present in “stealth” mode. The miracles He performed— which were, of course, within the “open” mode of action— were “pointers” to His divinity. John in his gospel calls them “signs” and “wonders” (John 2:23, 3:2, 4:48, cf. Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:2). Yet, we know that not only His miracles, but everything Christ did, came out of His divine-human being. The divine was indivisibly, constantly present, but in a stealthy, nonmiraculous mode. This brings us to a very important point. Many Christians incorrectly assume that God’s activity is always miraculous. However, the incarnation of Christ demonstrates that God not only operates nonmiraculously, but does so pervasively and primarily. In providence, the stealthy, nonmiraculous mode of divine operation is the usual and continuous one, while the miraculous or open mode is sporadic. We must keep this in mind as we study revelation. A scientific approach to nature and history will admit only to clearly discernible natural and historical causes. In Christian theology, however, the believer knows by divine revelation that natural and historical causes are sustained and guided by God (Acts 17:28). We cannot perceive or detect this divine activity because God is operating in stealth-nonmiraculous mode.

HOME PAGE 292

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

In revelation-inspiration, we find God acting both miraculously and nonmiraculously. Just as in providence, the miracles are easier to recognize than the hidden activities. We should be careful not to conclude that actions or ideas of miraculous origin and mode are more divine, certain, or true than those coming in the stealth-nonmiraculous mode. If we understand these two modes, we can better appreciate the variety of ways God communicated with his prophets, and can classify the patterns of divine revelation. He gave them His divine meaningful forms in both ways— openly and stealthily, directly and indirectly, with and without miraculous intervention. Using those terms together, we can classify the means of revelation in the following matrices: 1)Open-miraculous-direct (theophanies, visions, dreams, and miracles); 2)Open-miraculous-indirect (previous revelation); 3)Stealth-nonmiraculous-direct (Jesus Christ, history, and nature); 4)Stealth-nonmiraculous-indirect (reports others make about Jesus Christ, previous revelations, history, and nature). As one can see Jesus, previous revelations, history, and nature are received by prophets both directly (cf. §82) and indirectly (cf. §83).

§82. DIRECT SOURCES OF REVELATION In this section we will refer to “sources” or “means” of revelation; these interchangeable terms refer to the meaningful forms God uses to express His views, but from differing perspectives; “means” refers to God’s perspective on a meaningful form, whereas “source” describes how the biblical writer views it. In other words, for God, meaningful forms are the means or resources by which he communicates; the human writer receives through what he perceives as sources. From both perspectives, the meaningful forms are the objective means of communication from God to the writer. For revelation to happen, God must originate some means of communication for the prophet to receive as a source of information. It must

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

293

integrate the meaning God intends with what He knows to be the bible writer’s presuppositions as he will receive the meaningful forms. We will come to this point later. God initiates revelation in so many different concrete ways (Hebrews 1:1) that we will never know them all unless He someday tells us. But the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture tell us of at least some of these means through which God communicated His will and teachings to the bible writers. The bible writers experienced these sources of revelation personally, in space and time. Some of them came out of God’s open-miraculous-direct mode of operation, through sources such as theophanies, dreams, and visions; others, from his stealth-nonmiraculous-direct mode, such as in history and nature. Here we will identify a few of the ways God communicated the meaningful forms of revelation.

1. Theophanies By now we know that the God of Scripture was able to act historically. Our question is not whether God communicated with the prophets, but how. To answer this question, we have chosen to depend directly on the teachings of Scripture; God may well have used other forms or means of communication. We must always remember that our knowledge of God, even through his revelation, is limited. The meaningful forms God used for communication can be grouped according to the mode of divine activity that generated them. We find in Scripture open-miraculous sources of revelation, notably, theophanies (Genesis 35:9; Exodus 3:2, 6:3; 24:10, 34:5; Deuteronomy 31:15; Judges 6:11-24), dreams, and visions (Numbers 12:6; 1 Samuel 3:1; Jeremiah 14:14; Hosea 12:10; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:7). Because biblical authors experienced theophanies in space and time, they are open-miraculous-direct sources of revelation. The word theophany comes from the Greek words ? ? ? ? (“God”), and ? ? ?? ? (“to shine”). Thus, “theophany” literally means “God shines.” This literal meaning probably refers to the shining light associated with some instances of divine theophany, such as in Matthew 17:2 or Acts 9:3. Theologically, however,

HOME PAGE 294

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

the word refers to God’s direct presence in our spatiotemporal world; when theophany happens in the Bible, God is presenting Himself to human beings. On those occasions, God as a divine subject or agent is really present at a location in time and space in what is usually thought of as the “closed”continuum of human history. Because of this direct, actual presence, God can act within the laws of cause and effect without breaking the continuity of its relationship. In the classical and modern models, however, a theophany is merely an external manifestation of His being “for us.” Because God’s nature is timeless, He cannot be truly present in time and space. Classical and modern theologians understand any such appearance of God as a symbol pointing to the timeless being of God. As a symbol, the appearance must not be confused with the real God who always stays behind and beyond the reality of the appearance. According to these other models, a theophany is never the direct presence of God within space and time, but is only a symbol of His timeless presence in eternity, which to God is the neverending now. In the historical-cognitive model, divine theophanies are the basis and center for all the other modes and patterns of revelation. Because God presents Himself in space and time, we know that the meaningful forms present in those theophanies, whether literal or in dreams and visions, proceed directly from God. By the same token, we know that the literal spatiotemporal meanings of these forms accurately describe God’s being and actions. God’s temporality, however infinite, enables Him to communicate literally and directly with his finite human creatures. God speaks to the prophets directly in their own thought patterns and language. Whatever knowledge God gives them in revelation directly describes whatever He is referring to, be it part of God’s creation or God Himself. Divine communication always involves divine condescension. In other words, to communicate, God purposefully descends from His level of existence to the level of created human existence. Nothing prevents God from creating meaningful forms of communication which make obvious and open sense in the space and time of human experience. While it goes beyond the biblical description of God to say He has a mouth like we do, He certainly can utter the sounds required for oral communication

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

295

(for example, Matthew 3:17). He can communicate in human language. He knows the meaning we give to our words and uses them accordingly to speak to the prophets. (While God communicates directly, that does not mean we know God’s being directly or completely as He knows Himself. Scripture tells us God’s revelation is fragmentary and dimmed by our present state of sin, for example in Isaiah 59:2.) At times, theophanies occur within dreams or visions. In such cases, we have a theophanic context, but not a theophany proper. The meaningful forms God gives in dreams and visions are similar to those in “normal” theophanies. These forms are primarily words (Ezekiel 1:28), acts (Ezekiel 1:12), representations (1 Kings 22:19-22), symbols (Ezekiel 1:15-16), and figures (Ezekiel 1:5; Isaiah 6:1). As forms of communication, there is nothing supernatural in them. Humans have used these meaningful forms to communicate with each other since creation itself. God speaks about Himself and His will in forms and language that are understandable to human beings. In doing so, He can reveal His thoughts directly and without distortion, however limited by our patterns of thinking.

2. Dreams and Visions Almost everyone dreams at night and uses his or her imagination during the day. These dreams and visions consist of mental images and voices perceived within the person’s mind. By using his or her imagination, a person forms a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before perceived in reality. While the will is involved in the imaginative process, it seems to play little or no role in our dreams. But the contents of both are determined from our experiences. Like theophanies, dreams and visions are open-miraculous-direct sources of revelation. In them God places the necessary mental images within the imaginative process of human beings. To make sense, these meaningful forms must fit the general content of the prophet’s mind. However, they do not originate with that human mind, but in God’s wisdom. In other words, the bible writers could tell the difference between communication from God in dreams and visions, and the everyday workings of their own imaginations.

HOME PAGE 296

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Scripture does not draw a significant distinction between dreams and visions as different mediums of revelation, except that dreams are visions sent while the prophets sleep. God used both to communicate directly with the human mind in the physical absence of the objects appearing in them. In that sense, dreams and visions are similar to a movie or video. Though we see events unfolding on the screen, they are not actually happening right in front of us. In the same way, visions and dreams are representations to the prophet of past, present, or future events in the absence of the realities they depict. As a part of history, past realities are irreversible, irretrievable, and irreproducible. Present realities may, at times, be inaccessible to the prophet due to his or her location or limitations. Future realities do not yet exist. Not surprisingly, when God wanted biblical writers to know things that were inaccessible to them due to their circumstances or present knowledge, He spoke to them through dreams or visions. He gave their minds mental representations of the information He wanted them to have. This indicates that which communication medium God uses depends on what He wants to communicate. In other words, the content dictates how God presents it. As the content of revelation varies, so does the means (Hebrews 1:1). Visions and dreams frequently refer to future events and actions of God. The books of Daniel and Revelation are outstanding examples of visions of God’s salvation and intervention through events that were future to the writers of those books. Less often, visions can depict past and present events to the prophet as well. In Acts 10:10-17, for example, God communicates a reality present to the bible character, information previously unavailable to him because of his limitations (cf., Gen 15:1-5). In this passage, God gives Peter a vision based on Old Testament revelation; the vision does not refer to a future event, but to God’s present salvific actions and will. While God’s will might normally be considered out of the reach of human minds, it was not so in this case. God had already made clear that his salvation was for the entire world, not just for Israel (Isaiah 56:7). The vision was intended to correct Peter’s culturally-shaped presuppositions. While God might have hoped to have changed them by having the apostle read previous revelation, it was

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

297

apparently not enough for Peter at that time. He needed a paradigm shift in how he understood past revelation. Peter needed something as dramatic as a vision because his culture had so overshadowed the presuppositions with which he read Scripture that he did not understand the intention or reach of God’s salvation: it was meant for the whole world, not just the Jews. Revelation 12:1-9 is another example in which God used a vision to communicate knowledge about events that had already happened when John was writing (see also Ezekiel 28:11-19; Isaiah 14:11-14).

3. History Theophanies, visions, and dreams take place as a result of God’s openmiraculous mode of activity within the flow of human experience. God can also communicate through meaningful forms in His stealth-nonmiraculous mode. As we will see in this section, history is an example of this type of revelation. a. Does God reveal history? God rarely seems to be directly involved in the flow of historical and natural events. To the naked eye, history and nature appear to follow the laws of cause and effect. Divine intervention in history seems limited to unusual events we call “miracles.” But much of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, consists of historical material. In these passages, the Bible writers describe events in the lives of individuals and nations, including references to geography and nature. Where do these facts come from? Are they in the Bible simply because the prophet decided on his own initiative to put them there? If God originated all the contents of Scripture, how did these historical, geographical and natural details end up there? The evangelical and classical models assert that revelation only occurs within the open-miraculous, supernatural mode of divine communication. To them, God does not reveal the historical portions of Scripture. But because these models prioritize inspiration over revelation, the historical passages are still said to be true. The historical-cognitive model solves this question by positing that the

HOME PAGE 298

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

entire content of Scripture stems from both revelation and inspiration. God originates the historical and natural contents of Scripture in the mind of the biblical writers just as He does the supernatural contents, because both proceed from God’s revelatory activity— even if they occur in different modes. (Remember, the historical-cognitive model gives priority to revelation over inspiration.) How can historical narratives be revelation? Doesn’t biblical history result from the prophets’ normal human observation of historical facts? b. History as a Source in General and Special Revelation As we noted earlier (§81.1), providence covers all of God’s activity in human history, including what we have called the open-miraculous and stealthnonmiraculous modes of operation. Within the open-miraculous mode of divine activity we find theophanies, miracles, visions, and dreams. The stealth-nonmiraculous mode of operation, on the other hand, includes, God’s sustenance and guidance of the historical process, not only in the history of salvation in Israel and the church, but also the history of the entire human race— what we normally call “secular” history. God’s involvement in history covers the creation and maintenance of the world, as well as the work of salvation. Once Adam and Eve fell, God’s goal was to save every human being. Thus, John writes that Christ “enlightens every man” (John 1:9). Moreover, Paul explains that God intends “through Christ to gather everything in heaven and on earth under his government” (Ephesians 1:10, my translation). Since God’s actions in history involve everything in heaven and on earth, we can see how He might work not only within events directly related to salvation, but within all of human history as a whole as well (see Daniel 2:21). History can be a vehicle of both general and special revelation (§5.2.c). As God’s providence works in history, history becomes general revelation and reaches all human beings (universality; see §4). But because providence is usually hidden— because it operates in stealth-nonmiraculous mode— it does not generate words or any other meaningful forms, and therefore cannot be said to communicate specific information (generality, §4).

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

299

When God’s providence operates in the history of salvation— Israel and the church— history becomes special revelation, specifically as it is understood and recorded by the bible writers. Within salvation history, providence works both openly and stealthily, miraculously and nonmiraculously. As we noted above, God operates in open-miraculous mode to create meaningful forms of communication such as words, figures, symbols, and representations (§81.1-2). Stealth-nonmiraculous mode, on the other hand, produces not words, figures, symbols, or representations, but real historical events. In that case, the events themselves are the meaningful forms. For example, God intervenes in a battle as it is fought. That providential act, together with the testimonies of eyewitnesses, is a meaningful form. If a bible writer is led to write of such an event and possesses such eyewitness accounts, he has no need for God to send him dreams or visions to repeat the same information. In other words, humans come to know the events of history through their five senses and the operation of their reason. If God wishes to reveal a truth from history, He may choose to do so through naturally occurring forms. To use supernatural means would be superfluous and very likely counterproductive. We must bear in mind that God chooses how to reveal something based on what that something is. The information determines how it is presented. When God wants to reveal truths about particular historical events, the most suitable means of communication are the historical events themselves. Historical revelation in the Bible, then, exists to reveal God’s purpose in the history of salvation. As we will see later, the biblical writers understand new revelations about God and the history of salvation through previous revelations. Specifically, God reveals the structure of the history of salvation through prophetic anticipation. Of course, each portion of Scripture is different and involves a context and complexity of its own. But in the historical-cognitive model, God usually generates the meaningful forms related to salvation history by providential, stealth-nonmiraculous acts. We will return to the role of salvation history as the source of revelation in Chapter 17 when we explore patterns of revelation.

HOME PAGE 300

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

c. Levels of Historical Revelation History is complex, but God’s providence relates to it at every level. Historical revelation happens on two specific levels: the personal, and the communal or national. God generates meaningful forms as sources for revelation in both of them. d. Historical Revelation in Psalm 51 Much of Scripture was recorded as a consequence of God’s providence in the history of Israel and the Church. Here we will explore two examples, one from the Old Testament, the other from the New. First, Psalm 51 is a song of repentance written by David after he was rebuked for his affair with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11, 12). This song is a result of neither a supernatural vision nor a dream, but of divine providence. The Psalm is a confession; if it were a result of God’s irresistible decision or a vision forced on David, its impact would be seriously weakened. As a matter of fact, David needed no vision for the ideas he expressed in the song. Those words came from the experience of repentance God providentially intervened to give him. Several factors were involved. Most obviously, the words of Nathan the prophet provided the turning point in David’s attitude, but they merely built on the convicting power of the Holy Spirit and knowledge of the Law, both present in the king’s experience. David’s own freedom allowed him the decision to repent. None of these factors required an open miracle from God. Although arising from David’s own heart and mind, this psalm is an expression of God’s will and thought. After all, repentance brings our minds into harmony with God’s mind; He cleanses us the same way He cleansed David. This is a clear case of divine communication through historical means. e. Historical Revelation in Jesus Christ The four Gospels are another clear example of information and ideas received by biblical writers through historical means. They are written

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

301

accounts of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Almost all Christians agree that Jesus Christ is the highest and clearest revelation of God we have; for many theologians the entire Old Testament is a mere anticipation of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. This historical revelation occurs in a different sense than that of Psalm 51. In Christ, God acted historically, in stealth, direct, and human modes.3 God’s revelation in Christ is unusual because it blends the theophanic and historical means of divine communication. In Christ, we do not have a case of “pure” theophany or “pure” historical revelation. The difference between God’s revelation in Christ and other historical revelations is based on the fact that Christ was God. In historical revelation, divinely-originated meaningful forms occur as history itself. God, however, is not history; He is Himself, the divine being. In the life of Christ, we do not have a pure case of historical revelation because Jesus was God immediately present in space and time. Yet, because He does not appear as God, but as a human being, we do not have a pure case of theophany either. Because of his incarnation, God’s action in Christ takes place within the stealth mode of divine operation. In other words, Christ is God and appears in history— a theophany; however, the events of His life— His history— are also divine revelation. What we must remember is that in Christ, God communicates with biblical writers in the ordinary sequence of historical causes. God gave us the highest meaningful form of communication not through nature, history, dreams, visions, or theophanies, but through the His own historical life and teachings. Christ was God revealing Himself in human history— everyday human history within space and time. Christ Himself, His person, was a meaningful form; He created meaningful forms by teaching, performing miracles, dying and returning from the dead, while he lived among us. Both his being and the events of His life took place within the natural order of historical causes in which every human being lives. This means that the New Testament writers received their information on Christ’s life and ministry in the same way they would have received any other information— through everyday historical

HOME PAGE 302

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

communication. Because Christ was also human, His divine nature operated stealthily; He could therefore communicate a wealth of meaningful forms, which were directly and naturally received by His disciples and others around him. Those who could not be around Him during His earthly life have to depend on eye witnesses for God’s revelation in Christ (see Luke 1:1-3). We will return to this point when we examine indirect revelation in §83.

4. Nature Unlike scientists or philosophers, biblical authors were not interested in pursuing the study of nature for its own sake. Scripture is unconcerned with teaching about nature save for the consistent assertion that all the world is God’s creation (Genesis 1-2; Isaiah 45:18; Revelation 14:7). This teaching could not have come from anyone’s observation of nature, since according to the Genesis account humanity was the last creature God made. It had to come from divine revelation (Deut. 34:10). As we will see, nature may also be a stealth-nonmiraculous-direct source of divine revelation. a. Does God reveal nature? When God needs to reveal information that is available directly from nature, it would be superfluous to give those facts to the bible writer in a vision or a dream if the writer could simply go outside and make his own observations. According to the historical-cognitive model, God does not duplicate revelation unnecessarily. God is able to communicate through nature because He is the creator; therefore, everything in nature can become a meaningful form at the disposal of the bible writers. However, biblical authors did not pursue the understanding of nature like philosophers and scientists. They did not use it to develop a natural theology, that is, they did not prove the existence of God or interpret His divine nature from nature. Their purpose was to understand God’s plan of salvation. Any knowledge derived from or concerning nature (such as the doctrine of creation) was not an end in itself, but pointed to some aspect of God’s

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

303

involvement in history. b. The Historical Focus of Biblical Thought The focus of the Bible on history contrasts sharply with that of Greek philosophy and modern science. These enterprises seek to understand nature. In Greek philosophy, even the examination of human nature began with a natural rather than historical perspective. Human nature was understood as a thing and was considered to be a composite of two substances, body and soul, rather than as a historical event. By basing its presuppositions on such ideas, Christian theology not only adopted a timeless view of divine reality (§29, §42), but also understood human beings much as one would natural objects, asking what it consisted of— substance, soul or being. This mistaken approach to human nature set theologians in a course of thought incompatible with the patterns followed by biblical authors. c. Nature as a Source of Revelation Biblical authors drew very little from nature as a source of meaningful forms of communication. Prophets generally used information from their observation of nature to aid their narratives of historical events. At times, biblical writers compared natural phenomena with events and activities within history. A fast runner is compared to a gazelle (2 Samuel 2:18), or God’s strength to a rock (2 Samuel 2:23). The Holy Spirit is like the wind (John 3:8), while the king of Babylon, representing Satan, is like the morning star (Isaiah 14:12). Biblical writers also obtained geographical information from their personal knowledge or by using the information of others familiar with certain locations (Genesis 14:3; Numbers 34:12). Information about natural events, such as earthquakes, also came into revelation the same way (see Exodus 19:18, for example). However significant recorded observations of nature may be to biblical thought, they cover only a small fraction of Scripture. Moreover, any such information was included by the biblical writers only as a way to understand

HOME PAGE 304

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

God’s intervention in human history. Any data derived from natural sources of revelation only set the stage and enhanced the historical contents of the Bible. Since human history takes place against the backdrop of nature, it would be impossible to describe history without references to nature. These references, limited as they are in Scripture, tell us that biblical history, including God’s intervention in it, took place in exactly the same way in which our daily experiences occur— an indispensable point. By occasionally referring to nature, the Bible demonstrates that events in the history of salvation took place exactly in the same way as events in general history. d. Nature as Source in General and Special Revelation Nature plays different roles in natural and special revelation; a biblical example may help illustrate this. In Psalm 19:1-4, David presents heaven and earth as vehicles of God’s natural revelation (see §4-5). David points out that while nature can be communication from God, the absence of words usually means that nothing specific is being communicated. On the other hand, in Psalm 8, those same heavens become a source of special revelation as they fill David’s mind with thoughts of human insignificance. In both cases the heavens are wordless. What determines when nature is a source of special revelation and when it is not? God as creator and sustainer of nature determines its use and type of revelation, as well as the context in which the revelation is received by the biblical writer. Specifically, when God uses nature to communicate salvation directly with an individual, especially to one ignorant of special revelation in Scripture, it is considered natural or general revelation. When nature appears to generate specific ideas and words, we have a use of nature as a source of special revelation. We find an example of the latter in David’s song: “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have ordained, what is man that you take thought of him, and the son of man that you care for him”? (Psalm 8:3-4). In this psalm, David is using nature as a source of divine revelation, interpreting it from the perspective of creation.

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

305

Obviously, David did not derive the notion of creation from nature, but from previous revelation in the Genesis account. Instead of determining his hermeneutical presuppositions from philosophical or scientific speculation, David drew them from that divine knowledge. The observation of the heavens did not broaden David’s understanding of them, but helped him to realize the comparative smallness of human beings. Nature plays a role in special revelation, but it is always subordinated to prior knowledge of God and His relationship to nature. Biblical writers obtained this knowledge from written accounts of previous revelations. Nature becomes a means of general revelation only where special revelation is unknown. In that context, God uses it, together with history, as a means to communicate his salvation to a particular individual’s personal experience. As we saw in Chapter 2, when divine communication with humans is limited to meaningful forms occurring in nature, without words, specific information is not transmitted and any conviction is limited to the individual. The meaning of nature is insufficient for generating universal knowledge of God and His will for us.

§83. INDIRECT SOURCES OF REVELATION Not many theologians recognize the possibility of indirect sources of revelation. What do we mean by “indirect”? It refers not to the origin of revelation in God, but to its reception by the prophet. Sometimes information of God’s open-miraculous and stealth-nonmiraculous activities come to the Bible writer through other people, either by speech or oral tradition, or through written documents. An example of an indirect open-miraculous source of revelation would be the accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings collected by the gospel writers, especially Luke and Mark, as well as references in the Bible to previous portions of Scripture. An indirect stealthnonmiraculous source would include historical documents. The classical and evangelical models assume that revelation takes place only when God speaks directly and openly to the human writer. In other words, proponents of these models understand revelation to be prophecy and

HOME PAGE 306

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

nothing else. What has not been clearly produced by prophecy is not revealed, but only inspired. Once again we return to the idea that only portions of Scripture are revealed, while all of it is inspired. The historicalcognitive model, however, recognizes both direct revelation from God, and revelation brought to the biblical writers indirectly through other sources.

1. Jesus Christ In §82.3.e, we underlined that God reveals himself in Christ under the stealth-nonmiraculous mode of operation. In this section, we will examine how at least some Gospel authors indirectly received the information and ideas concerning God’s revelation in Christ. As we continue, keep in mind that the event of revelation requires more than divine revelatory activity. The biblical writer must also receive the meaningful forms God communicates. Luke and Mark seem to have obtained the information they used in their gospel accounts indirectly, through eyewitness accounts and documents. These other sources observed God’s revelation in Christ directly, though it operated in stealth mode. For instance, Luke collected this firsthand information for his own research. Luke introduces his Gospel by explaining to his reader the way he received the information for his writing: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus (Luke 1:1-3).

Scholars believe Luke’s gospel presents Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ life and teachings, while Mark follows Peter’s eyewitness account of the same events. But the point is that neither Luke nor Mark were among the twelve disciples of Christ. They did not receive God’s stealth-nonmiraculous revelation in Christ directly, but indirectly through the historical testimonies of witnesses. Those testimonies may have included oral and written materials as Luke’s introduction implies. God did not reveal the content of any of the gospels through supernatural dreams and visions, but by the events

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

307

themselves and by the stealth-nonmiraculous, normal transmission of information from one person to another. Because the historical-cognitive model assumes God’s nature to be historical, God’s stealth-nonmiraculous revelation in Christ directly conveys God’s thoughts and activities even though it was indirectly received by the gospel writers. To avoid confusion, we must differentiate here between two different kinds of “direct-indirect” revelation. The first is whether God reveals the information directly or indirectly; the second, whether that information comes to the Bible writers directly or indirectly. The former refers to whether God speaks or acts miraculously or stealthily for a given revelation, the latter whether God is communicating with the prophet directly or through an intermediary witness or writing. The historical-cognitive model asserts that God is able to communicate through meaningful forms He creates miraculously as well as by speaking stealthily through seemingly ordinary objects, documents or circumstances. It also maintains that the sources of revelation can reach the biblical writers both directly and indirectly. The revelation of the events in the four gospels defies the traditional understanding of revelation. In Christ, we have the highest possible revelation of God available. Yet that revelation did not reach us through visions or dreams, but through the incarnation of God in human history. Moreover, Mark and Luke did not receive the information first-hand, directly, but indirectly through the testimony of witnesses. Jesus’ life was public in the sense that it was available to all those around him. At times, there were thousands around him receiving stealthnonmiraculous revelation directly as in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7:29). At other times, only a few disciples were present, as in the transfiguration event (Matthew 17:1-13). In personal conversations, only the individuals with whom Jesus spoke received the information directly, as with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21). Whenever a biblical writer receives revelation indirectly, a mediator has received it directly. Once that eyewitness has received the revelation and begins to relate it to someone else, he or she also interprets it. As

HOME PAGE 308

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

they relate their story to the biblical writer, their interpretation of the facts is also revelation (Luke 1:2). As the highest of God’s revelations in the Bible, the four gospels are a clear example of revelation received both directly, by witnesses, and indirectly, by writers. Visions, dreams, theophanies, and even the direct writing of God were inadequate for communicating the meaningful forms present in and presented by Jesus Christ.

2. Previous Revelations God also revealed His will and teachings to the biblical writers through revelations that preceded them chronologically. Specifically, God reveals Himself in Scripture. A verse we referred to earlier, “To the law and to the testimony” (Isaiah 8:20) is a clear example of this biblical principle. The principle is based on the historical nature of God and His revelation to us, as well as the historical nature of human beings and knowledge. No biblical writer wrote without a firm grounding in the knowledge of God, based on earlier revelation. We might even say that according to the record of Scripture divine revelation has always preceded human experience. Going back to Creation, as Adam opened his eyes, he saw God (Genesis 2:7-8). Although Moses, who was probably the first biblical writer, did not have the advantage of previous written revelations, he was aware of divine revelation through oral traditions learned from his mother (Exodus 2:1-9); it is clear in Exodus 3 that he was well aware of who the God of Israel’s ancestors was even though he had to ask God’s name. Previously written revelation was a major source for the writers of Scripture. From those earlier documents, they drew their spiritual experience, hermeneutical presuppositions, ideas, and information that in various ways shaped how they understood God’s personal revelation to them. First, biblical writers were believers in God and were experiencing the transforming power of his grace, or sanctification. No atheistic, rebellious, or disobedient person ever became a biblical writer, because to be a prophet required knowledge of God’s prior special revelation. (The biblical writers

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

309

would use those earlier documents for their hermeneutical presuppositions for interpreting new revelations. As we will see later, as prophets received new meaningful forms, they always had to interpret them.) These two qualifications were mandatory for biblical writers. Finally, biblical writers would use the language and ideas of previous revelations, often quoting or alluding to earlier Scriptures. For example, Paul often quoted the Old Testament, as in his quotation of Psalm 32 in Romans 4.

3. General Historical Sources Finally, biblical writers can also indirectly receive revelation that comes from God’s stealth-nonmiraculous mode of operation (§82.3-4). Again, “indirectly” means that the Bible writers sometimes received information about natural or historical events from other sources, oral or written. Since the community did not come to recognize these sources as part of the canon, they are considered general historical and scientific sources. By general historical sources I mean the existence of oral or written sources of historical knowledge from which biblical writers derived knowledge they brought into their writings. These sources were not canonical nor inspired. In other words, the community did not regard them as originating in God. However, their accounts of historical facts were used by biblical writers as sources of information about God’s stealth involvement in the history of Israel. The Hebrews kept official records of state. Among them we find, for example, the following books: “The Acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), “The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel”(1 Kings 14:19), “The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah”(1 Kings 11:41), and “The Book of Genealogy”(Nehemiah 7:5). The author of 1 and 2 Kings actually compiled his narrative from different official sources. Since these sources were provided by God’s providence in the history of Israel, operating in stealth-nonmiraculous mode, we can consider them to be sources of divine revelation, indirectly received by the author of Kings. In the book of Esther, we have an account of how these official documents were written. The narrative tells us how Mordecai became aware of a plot against King Ahasuerus, which he related to the queen. In turn, Queen Esther informed King Ahasuerus (Esther 2:21-22). The “plot was investigated and

HOME PAGE 310

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

found to be so, they [the conspirators] were both hanged on a gallows; and it was written in the Book of the Chronicles in the king’s presence”(Esther 2:23). This passage tells us that it was customary elsewhere in the ancient world to record the important events of the kingdom in official records (see Esther 10:2). It also shows that the authors of these books investigated the facts before they put them into writing. This was done following the normal procedures of historical research and writing.

§84. RANKING THE SOURCES OF REVELATION We have isolated the main sources or means God used to communicate with the writers of the Bible. While these are not the only ones, they are the most relevant to most readers of Scripture. To summarize, the historical-cognitive model accepts what Scripture teaches about itself: that God revealed Himself in various ways (Hebrews 1:1). This biblical concept contrasts with the one pattern explanation of divine activity by the other models. The means of divine revelation are many and diverse. To understand them, then, we must account for their differences and for how they operate together.

1. Levels of Inspiration? Theologians have always wrestled with the variety and differences of form and style in the phenomena of the Bible. Some liberal theologians who find themselves unwilling to give up completely the classical view of divine inspiration often use the notion of “levels” of inspiration to account for this variety. As an example, Paul J. Achtemeier recently asked, “How is one to account for such obvious variations in the quality of the material inspired by God and contained in Scripture?” He notes two possible answers: One can, of course, solve the problem by denying that it exists, i.e., by insisting that the person who notes differing qualities simply shows in that way that he or she is incapable of finding the true message in those

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

311

portions of Scripture identified as being of lesser quality.

Not all, however, will see things so simplistically: “For those for whom such a solution is not acceptable, the only other alternative lies in accounting for those differences. One way is to speak of varying levels of inspiration.”4 Several pages later he concludes that if the quality of the material differs and is uneven, then we must conclude that there are varying degrees of inspiration. If some writings show a maximum ‘divine element,’other show it at a minimum. The level of truth in some writings is high, in others it is low. All of that leads to the conclusion that one may not view the Bible as being of equal inspiration throughout.5

Achtemeier feels that diversity in the content and literary form of Scripture means that it varies in quality. Apparently he has in mind the evangelical model’s understanding of the inspiration as a divine quality (§55.3.b). Since a difference in results logically suggests a difference in causes, Achtemeier believes the differences within Scripture’s quality point to different levels of divine inspiration. This notion of levels of inspiration is not new, going back perhaps as far as the third century AD. Although this view simultaneously accounts for Scripture’s variety while affirming its divine origin, it does irreparable damage to its authority. If some parts of Scripture are more “divine” than others, they should hold more authority in the life and teachings of the church. Which parts are “higher” than the rest are left to the presuppositions and prejudices of any given reader. Thus, the Bible’s authority is surreptitiously subordinated to its interpreters.

2. Revelation and Literary Diversity in Scripture Not only does Scripture cover many issues in many forms and styles. Variety is also present due to God’s open-miraculous and stealth-nonmiraculous modes of operation and their direct and indirect reception by biblical writers. The diversity in writing styles is due to the varying literary savvy of each writer. The variety of literary forms is derived both from the sources of revelation and the audience addressed by biblical writers. The historical-cognitive model recognizes diversity

HOME PAGE 312

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

of style and forms in Scripture, but departs from the notion of levels of inspiration at three points: the divine activity involved, the reason for literary diversity, and the consequences for the authority of Scripture. First, variety of literary styles and forms are not traced back to variances in divine inspiration, but to reception of divine revelation by the prophets. In other words, all divine revelation was subject to interpretation by the bible writers, which was bound to differ because of the differing personalities and backgrounds of each of them. Second, the reason for literary diversity is also due to the variances in different sources of revelation rather than in the relative “strength”of inspiration. Finally, diversity of literary forms does not automatically entail various levels of scriptural authority. God uses various methods of revelation simply because the things He chose to reveal required different avenues of communication. Thus, God chose whatever source suited his revelatory purposes at a given time. For instance, dreams and visions are especially suited to communicate prophecies of the future as well as abstract teachings and ideas. Theophanies are the best way to reveal the real presence of God in time and space. The consequences of both sin and faithfulness to God at a personal level are best revealed through a particular writer’s own experiences with them. Similarly, sin and faithfulness at the communal level and their consequences are best revealed through the history of that community.

3. The Ranking Criterion Since divine modes of revelation differ, is it possible to rank them without implying that different parts of Scripture have different levels of authority? That depends on which criteria we use to rate the various sources of revelation. If we suppose that God was somehow more involved with some sources than with others, we may not be able to. On the other hand, if we rate them on their cognitive specificity, we can. All portions of Scripture will remain equally authoritative because they come

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

313

from God, but because some are more specific than others, they can be considered higher. Why must we rank sources of revelation in the first place? Doing so will help us to understand the sources of revelation as an interactive whole. Seeing how the sources work together will clarify for us how the human writers received revelation through the various sources (Chapter 16). This will help us understand the patterns of revelation we will discuss in Chapter 17.

4. Relative Standing The sources of revelation— meaningful forms— that are more specific in meaning outrank others that are less specific. For instance, words spoken by God will outrank historical records or natural objects as vehicles of communication. Theophanies rank the highest in cognitive specificity because they include not only words, but the real presence of God in space and time. Within this category, we could place Moses’ face-to-face conversations with God (Exodus 33:11, 34:29; Deuteronomy 34:10). First among theophanies we find the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. At the second level we find visions and dreams. They have the capacity for words as do theophanies and the person of Jesus, but lack the real physical presence of God. However, they are able to add visual representations of past, present, and future realities not present in theophanies or the Incarnation. The history of salvation is the next meaningful form. This source is vital because it reveals God from the outcome of his providential dealings with Israel and the church. In Scripture, God not only reveals Himself but demonstrates the practical results of accepting or rejecting His plan of salvation. This source of revelation comes from God as certainly as do theophanies, the incarnation, dreams, and visions. However, its cognitive specificity is not as high as the first two levels, because in it we do not perceive the words and acts of God directly, but from other human beings. Moreover, history is a public source of information; everyone else has access to the same information the prophet does.

HOME PAGE 314

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

The world of nature is the fourth level of divine revelation. This level ranks the lowest because it does not include words of any kind; there is very little cognitive specificity. As with history, natural revelation is open to everyone. Because of their public nature, God is able to use history and nature at the personal level to reveal salvation to every individual: general revelation. Yet, it is obvious that however it has been reduced, nature is a source of revelation in biblical thinking. To summarize, the sources of divine revelation vary in cognitive specificity, higher in theophanies and Jesus Christ, visions and dreams, and lower in history and nature. Does this relative standing imply a corresponding order of scriptural authority? Are those Bible passages depicting appearances of God more authoritative than those concerning nature? The answer is no. Differing degrees of cognitive specificity in various passages of Scripture only mean that those passages have different roles in the process of revelation.

5. Limitations The relative standing of the sources of revelation uncovers the cognitive limitations of history and nature as sources of revelation. Not only does their revelation of God and salvation remain more open to interpretationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; a lower level of cognitive specificityâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; but their limitations increase when prophets received ideas from nature and history indirectly through the mediation of other human witnesses. Reception implies understanding, which requires interpretation. When the biblical writers received revelation directly from history and nature, they interpreted their sources first hand. Yet, when they obtained their information through noninspired witnesses, the biblical writers interpretations either overrules or integrates within a larger picture the interpretations of those other sources. These multiple interpretations form part of the process of revelation, and depend on the presuppositions from which the bible writers think and write. We will study this role further in the next chapter. For now, we must recognize that because historical and natural sources are limited, they play roles different from other sources; moreover, because they are limited in cognitive specificity, their record depends on the

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

315

Figure 1: Roles of the Sources of Revelation interpretation of the writers of Scripture as well as any sources they may have used.

6. Roles As we have alluded to above, the degree of cognitive specificity of the various sources determines their relative role within the process of revelation (§84.4). Sources with higher cognitive specificity (theophanies, Jesus Christ, visions, and prophecies) play grounding roles. Sources with lower levels of cognitive specificity (history and nature) play subordinate roles. Because revelation always must be interpreted based on the biblical writers’presuppositions, only sources with a high level of cognitive specificity can provide those presuppositions. Thus, biblical writers always interpreted new information based on presuppositions from earlier revelations with the higher levels of cognitive specificity (Figure 1). As shown in the chart, the historicalcognitive model inverts the order of interpretation proposed by the classical and evangelical views of revelation. In those models, natural revelation is considered to be the most perfect. In other words, supernatural revelation must be interpreted through secular history and nature. Philosophy and science of necessity are used to interpret prophecy and theological writings. The historical-cognitive model reverses this by interpreting the meaningful forms of history and nature through the far more specific meaningful forms given

HOME PAGE 316

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

by God through supernatural revelation. Only when this process is followed can we claim to operate within the mandate of Isaiah 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”

§85. REVIEW • God reveals Himself in many ways (Hebrews 1:1). God acts in a variety of modes. In revelation, God operates either openly or stealthily. Biblical revelation cannot be understood until it is recognized that God reveals Himself in many different ways. • Open-miraculous mode. God is said to act openly or miraculously when His activity breaks the normal flow of natural and historical causes. God has occasionally chosen to generate the meaningful forms of revelation within this “open-miraculous” mode of operation, with or without extraordinary external manifestations.

• Stealth-nonmiraculous mode. God’s actions do not always involve bending the laws of nature and history. He can also work within them. However, when He does so, human beings are unable to perceive His activity. The daily life of Jesus Christ is an example of this mode. The providential guidance of history as a whole is another. • Sources or means of revelation: definition. By source or means of revelation, we mean any objective reality produced by God and received by the prophet. The form possesses meaning within itself, which passes from God to the human writer. We call these objective realities “means” from the viewpoint of God as their originator, and “sources” from the viewpoint of the biblical writer as receiver. Because sources or means of

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

317

revelation have meaning in themselves we call them “meaningful forms” of communication. • Sources/means of revelation: matrices. We can classify the means of revelation in the following matrices, based on the modes of divine activity and human reception: open-miraculous-direct (theophanies, visions, and dreams); open-miraculous-indirect (previous revelation); stealth-nonmiraculous-direct (Jesus Christ, history, and nature); and stealth-nonmiraculous-indirect (Jesus Christ, previous revelations, history, and nature). Jesus, previous revelations, history, and nature are received by the Bible writers both directly and indirectly. • Theophanies. Theophanies work within the open-miraculous mode of divine operation. A biblical theophany takes place when God shows or presents Himself to human beings; it is the real presence and actions of God as divine subject or agent within the causal flow of human history. Because of this direct, actual presence, God can act in particular moments of human history without breaking the continuity of its causal relationship. • The historical-cognitive model: an emphasis on theophanies. In the historical-cognitive model, divine theophanies are the cognitive foundation for all other modes and patterns of revelation. When God presents himself in space and time, we know the meaningful forms presented in theophanies, dreams, and visions proceed directly from Him. We also know that their literal, spatiotemporal meanings accurately describe God’s being and actions. Because God is temporal, He can communicate directly and literally with finite humanity in space and time. • Divine speech. Divine speech operates within the open-miraculous mode of divine operation. Since God is historical, He can speak in human language. Although according to Scripture God does not have a mouth like we

HOME PAGE 318

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

do, He can utter the sounds required for oral communication (i.e., Matt 3:17). In other words, He knows the meaning we give to our words and uses them accordingly when speaking with the prophets. Divine speech occurs in theophanies, Jesus Christ, visions, dreams, and is recorded in previous revelations. • Dreams and visions. Dreams and visions operate within the open-miraculous mode of divine operation. The meaningful forms involved in dreams and visions can include words (for example, Ezekiel 1:28), acts (Ezekiel 1:12), representations (1 Kings 22:19-22), symbols (Ezekiel 1:15-16), and figures (Ezekiel 1:5; Isaiah 6:1). There is nothing supernatural in the forms themselves; it is only their presentation that is supernatural. The forms mean the same things they always did to humans. God speaks to us about Himself, His will, and teachings for us in forms and language understandable to us. In doing so, He can reveal His views directly and without distortion, however limited by our form and patterns of thinking (divine condescension).

• History as source/means of special revelation. God’s providential involvement in the history of salvation, that of Israel and the church, allows history to function as a source of special revelation. God’s providential activity in salvation history operates in both the stealth-nonmiraculous and open-miraculous modes. Much of the Old and New Testaments uses history as a source/means of revelation. • Meaningful forms in history. History consists of human events at the personal and social levels. Here, God does not produce words, figures, symbols, or representations, but guides the historical process. Historical events reveal His administration. This mode of divine involvement includes not only salvation history, but also history as a whole— that of the entire human race.

HOME PAGE GOD’S ROLE IN REVELATION

319

• Two levels of historical revelation. God is involved in history at the existential level of each individual and at the social level of communities, nations, and the entire cosmos. • Nature as a source/means of special revelation. Because God is Creator, everything in nature can become a meaningful form for biblical writers. Obviously, the forms in nature do not include speech. Although this source is present in Scripture, it plays only an occasional and peripheral role. • Direct and indirect reception of the sources of revelation. The prophet may receive the sources of revelation directly from God, or indirectly from other sources testifying about stealth involvement in history. The difference is that when a prophet receives revelation indirectly, a human mediator is involved. Sources produced via the openmiraculous mode of divine operation may reach biblical writers in written or oral form, and may include previous canonical or non-canonical writings. Either direct or indirect reception can apply to all sources of divine revelation, including Jesus Christ. • Rejection of “levels” or “degrees” of inspiration. The notion that Scripture was produced by different degrees of divine inspiration implies that some portions are more inspired than others, and thus more authoritative. The historical-cognitive model rejects this position. • Ranking the sources of revelation. As meaningful forms of communication, we can rank the relative standing of the sources of revelation according to their cognitive specificity. Some sources have higher cognitive specificity than others. Moving in order from high to low cognitive specificity, we have theophanies, Jesus Christ, dreams and visions, history, and nature. Since this ranking flows not from higher or

HOME PAGE 320

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

lower degrees of divine intervention, but from the cognitive characteristics of the different means of communication or meaningful forms, it does not entail degrees of biblical authority. • Ranking and roles. The various levels of cognitive specificity in the means God chose to communicate with biblical writers suggest the different means play different roles in revelation. Moreover, previous sources with higher levels of specificity provided the presuppositions from which the biblical writers understood divine revelation.

ENDNOTES 1

Paul Helm, The Providence of God: Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 17. 2

See John E. Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998). Although delighted that fellow Christian theologians are taking biblical thought seriously in these matters, I cannot follow this view in substantial points as, for instance, the foreknowledge of God. I will deal with this and other related topics at a later time. Moreover, the focus of Open Theism thus far seems to revolve around the reality of intercessory prayer and our relation to God without paying much attention to its systematic implications. 3

Divine sovereignty is a highly debated concept that can be understood in several different ways. The historical-cognitive model rejects the classical interpretation of divine sovereignty as understood by theologians like Augustine and Calvin. The question is not whether God is sovereign, but how He exercises His sovereignty. In recent years, the concept of “Open Theism” has emerged to assert that God rules history by persuasion. We assert here that God’s sovereignty covers the entire scope of history. As divine, God rules over history. In the incarnation, He acts as a human person within the flow of the history He also rules.

HOME PAGE GODâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S ROLE IN REVELATION 4

321

Paul J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 14. 5

Ibid., 30.

HOME PAGE

16. REVELATION INCARNATED

Revelation begins as God creates meaningful forms of divine information, and is completed as the human writer receives these forms in his or her cognitive experience. In the historical-cognitive model, how the contents of Scripture came to the minds of its writers depends on this incarnation of revelation. If we are to understand revelation, then, we must understand how each of the sources we discussed in the previous chapter was incarnated. Once this is complete, we will be able to describe the major patterns of revelation in Chapter 17, and how the revealed information was written down in the process of inspiration in Chapter 18. We will begin this chapter by comparing the incarnation of revelation with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Then we will discuss the incarnation analogy, its structure, locus, modes, content, and method.

§86. THE INCARNATION ANALOGY Most of us seldom use the word “incarnation” in everyday conversation. The word comes from Latin and literally means “in flesh.”Christians use the word to describe how the second person of the Trinity became a human being named Jesus of Nazareth. The apostle John described the idea simply: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). In the incarnation, God became a man.

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

323

1. Incarnation The concept of incarnation implies a certain process through which God became human. We have almost no information about that process. We know only that Jesus somehow moved from divine to human existence (Philippians 2:6-8). The incarnation took place at the very level of being. The divine Person was changed in a way that continues to puzzle the most brilliant theological minds.

2. Analogy In the revelation-inspiration of Scripture, something like the incarnation of Christ took place: what was divine became human. While the two processes are similar, however, they are not identical. One thing can only be identical to another when both are exactly the same in all aspects— such as carbon copies or clones. When two things are similar or analogous, they are alike in some respects, but different in others.

3. Nature and Limitations The incarnation of divine revelation in Scripture and the incarnation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ are analogous, not identical. Having noticed the analogy1, some Christian theologians have used it to create an understanding of revelationinspiration. Unfortunately, we cannot use the analogy like this, because any analogy is impossible without a knowledge of the two things we say are similar. In other words, we must understand both objects before we can say that they are analogous. Moreover, only when discussing Jesus Christ are we speaking of incarnation proper. In revelation-inspiration, the idea of incarnation is more a metaphor. In revelation-inspiration, divine knowledge is literally written down, or “inscripturized.” Divine forms of knowledge and communication become human. The incarnations of Jesus and Scripture are similar, but in a reduced sense. Because Jesus is a Person and Scripture literature, the process through and sense

HOME PAGE 324

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

in which they became human is different. In Jesus, God became a human being. In Scripture, God’s knowledge became human knowledge. The two processes belong to different planes— the former to the plane of things and being (ontology), the latter to knowledge (epistemology). Thus, we cannot determine how we view the incarnation of Scripture through revelation-inspiration from our view of Christ’s incarnation. To determine how the divine and human factors interact in each case, we must study them separately.

4. Factors of Interpretation As various theologians interpret Christ’s incarnation in many different ways, so they interpret Scripture’s incarnation in many ways as well. The classical, evangelical, and modern models of revelation-inspiration are, in fact, different accounts of “incarnational” inspiration, though they are rarely referred to in those terms. We find more explicit references to an “incarnational view of inspiration” among theologians dissatisfied with these existing models.2 Proponents of such a view tend to be conservatives seeking to harmonize their beliefs with the historical-critical method and usually are particularly dissatisfied with the limited role of the human agent in the evangelical model.3 We can sympathize with their dissatisfaction. But they are incorrect to assume that the incarnation of divine knowledge in Scripture must assume the historical-critical interpretation of scriptural phenomena.4 Why? The problem is methodological.

5. Assumptions Practitioners of the historical-critical method are usually unaware that it depends on classical and modern philosophical presuppositions. The method is a tool, they think, enhancing but not distorting the phenomena. But this understanding of scientific methodology is simply false. Under the guise of scientific methodology, scholars approach the ideas and stories written in the Bible with suspicion. As they use historical-critical procedures, they superimpose on Scripture an alien, philosophical worldview,

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

325

including an alien view of revelation-inspiration— such as the denial of any direct communication between God and human beings. Such assumptions make the search for a new model unnecessary. After all, why should we search for what we already have? Consequently, as we study revelation-inspiration, we must avoid nonbiblical ideologies. We have placed the historical-critical method under criticism for just such a reason, but we must also bracket out the conservative view of Scripture as well. Setting aside any prior interpretations of revelation-inspiration and their consequent understandings of the Bible will give us new eyes for what it says about itself. In other words, it will give us a prescientific grasp on the nature and teachings of Scripture. As we eliminate nonbiblical presuppositions, we open the door to the discovery and use of biblical assumptions. We have discussed these assumptions at length in Chapter 13 (§66-72). In the rest of this chapter, we will use them to explore the incarnation of divine revelation in the mind of the biblical writer.

6. Introducing an Analysis of Revelation’s Incarnation In this section, we will examine the incarnation analogy for the sake of clearly understanding it. As we noted above, we must study each phenomenon separately before we can see the analogy between them, so we will not deduce the incarnation of revelation-inspiration from Christ’s incarnation. Once this study is done, however, points of similarity do emerge. Here I will use selected points from our prior study of Christ’s incarnation to further understand the incarnation in the Bible, not to create such an explanation. Some obvious issues regarding Jesus’incarnation present themselves as we analyze the incarnation of revelation. We see the issues more clearly as we look at Christ, because in His case the incarnation takes place in a real person. But these points are not as obvious when revelation is incarnated, because that incarnation takes place in the realm of knowledge. We can see people, but ideas we cannot; they are intangible. Hence, our analysis here will move from the known to the unknown. Since the incarnation of Christ requires the presence of both the human

HOME PAGE 326

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

and the divine natures, any study of it must examine the relationship, or structure, between the two. Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate; how was the divine present in the human? In other words, in what mode did the divine nature operate within the human locus? What kind of human nature did He have— that is, what were its a priori contents? Did it include original sin, for example? How did Jesus live? Was he sinless, and if so, what does that mean? And finally, how did His human and divine natures interact, or operate, together? These are the points of correspondence as we study the incarnation of revelation. We study the structure of revelation— the cognitive relationship between divine nature (God) and human nature (biblical writers). Revelation’s locus is within the human nature of the bible writers; how did the meaningful forms come to be present within those writers— what was their mode? What were the concrete a priori contents of the writers’human nature, the aspects of their being which they possessed before receiving revelation? Finally, how did the divine and human components operate in the process of revelation? While these corresponding components of incarnation will help us through the rest of the chapter, we must consider the differences as well. In the structure of both cases, the divine and human are involved, yet in Christ they are present at a personal level (ontological), while in revelation they are present at the level of knowledge (epistemological). Second, the locus of incarnation is always human. Yet in Christ’s incarnation, the divine and human became one reality, while in revelation they became a particular message or teaching within a human mind. Third, God is present in Christ in his human mode (form), while in revelation God’s thoughts and actions are present in cognitive and linguistic modes. Fourth, the a priori contents of Christ’s incarnation refers to whether Christ inherited original sin, while in revelation it refers to the previous knowledge and experiences biblical writers had at the time of revelation. Finally, the operation of Christ refers to His entire life in human form, while in revelation it refers only to the writers’ reception and processing of divinely created meaningful forms.

§87. THE STRUCTURE OF INCARNATION

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

327

As the incarnation depended on a particular relationship between the divine and human natures in Christ, so did the revelation of God to biblical writers. The incarnation of God in Christ took place in one human person in a concrete period of human history. In contrast, the incarnation of revelation took place repeatedly, as the prophets’minds processed the meaningful forms of revelation created by God, in a subject-object relationship. Divine revelation became incarnate as the biblical writers freely examined the meaningful forms God gave them through the lenses of their prior life experiences. Before revelation is incarnated, God chooses what He will reveal depending on His purposes. He then takes the specific information He wants to give and puts them in a form— the meaningful form— most suited to the mind of His chosen writer, and to the historical period and audience that writer will address with his message. While no Bible texts explicitly support this assertion, most students of the Bible will agree with us that it is strongly implied by the phenomena of Scripture. God’s thoughts are incarnated when the sources He creates are received by the prophets. Once the prophets get them, they interpret what they have been given based on their own experiences. What they write— the content of Scripture— is based on the free interaction between what God reveals and how the prophet interprets it. Please note that what is written in the Bible is not identical to the sources of revelation coming from God; those sources must be interpreted by the prophet before they are written down. The Gospels provide one clear example of how the bible writers’ experiences and reception of revelation affected what they wrote. Obviously, Jesus only lived one life, yet we have four different accounts of it. These differences do not mean that God revealed a different set of events to each of the evangelists, but that each writer received what God revealed in Christ differently. All this means that the prophets did not originate the contents of Scripture, but did contribute to them via their free interpretive reception. The obvious question here is this: did the contributions of the writers introduce errors into the Bible? We will deal with the reliability of Scripture in the last chapter of this

HOME PAGE 328

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

book. For now, though, we will explore the nature, modes, contents, and method of how the humans received divine revelation.

§88. THE LOCUS OF INCARNATION To review, incarnation describes the presence of God in history as a human being in the person of Jesus Christ. Similarly but not identically, the incarnation of Scripture describes the presence of divine knowledge in prophetic thinking. Doubtlessly, prophetic thinking originates with God. Yet according to the doctrine of Scripture, God chose to communicate with us through the prophets (2 Peter 1:20-21). This means that somehow, God’s thoughts entered the mind and experience of the biblical writers. The prophets, then, passed on this divine knowledge to us through how they understood the sources God gave them— the meaningful forms of revelation. The people God used became the point, or locus, where the incarnation of divine thought took place. The writers of Scripture assumed the historical understanding of human nature (§70) and reason (§71-72). As rational beings, prophets are not passive, but active, receptors. Their minds actively shape what they receive from God in the very act of receiving the meaningful forms. To assert that the prophets were not passive as they received God’s revelation and recorded it may be disturbing to you. How can God be the author of Scripture if His writers contributed to its contents? This is a reasonable objection. Yet, just because the prophets interpreted the sources of revelation they had received from God before they communicated them to other people does not necessarily contradict the biblical claim that Scripture originates in God. To understand this, we must examine both the prophets’reception and contributions.

1. Prophets as Historical Beings What kind of being is the prophet at the moment he receives divine revelation? Are his rational powers changed or “elevated” to make him fit to receive revelation? How we answer these questions determines how we understand the incarnation of God’s revealed thoughts; to do that, we must apply the

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

329

hermeneutical presuppositions we discussed in Chapter 13. Prophets were normal human beings just like us (James 5:17). Their natures or brain functions were no different than ours. In other words, God did not elevate their rational powers to fit superhuman, timeless contents. According to biblical teaching on human nature, they did not have a timeless soul that needed elevation before it could receive meaningful forms from God (§70.3). Their natures were historical. God merely condescended to communicate His thoughts at their level; as we have discussed, nothing in His nature prevents Him from doing so (§82.1). If human nature is historical, then individual human beings as well as their history as a community develops over time— historically. Greek philosophy understands human nature in analogy of material nonhistorical things (see §29); Scripture understands human nature from the perspective of the events human beings create in space and time. History exists because humans produce it. Human nature must be understood historically. In this context, human knowledge must also operate historically; that is, it develops over time.

2. Historical Minds To have a “historical mind” does not mean merely that prophets existed in history, but that their cognitive abilities operated along the historical processes of their own experiences. We have already explored the historical functioning of human knowledge and its presence in biblical thinking (§71.23). Here, we will look at how a mind that processes information over a historical period would process divine revelation in meaningful forms. Human knowledge is a subject-object relationship (§24). Knowledge always and only takes place when humans receive sources of information— that is, objects of knowledge. Knowledge requires presuppositions. Processing information through a person’s presuppositions is an act of interpretation. Historical reason, then, operates by way of interpretation, and interpretation operates by way of presuppositions. Presuppositions provide frames of reference within which knowledge takes place (see §24.3). Where do prophets get the presuppositions they use to receive divine

HOME PAGE 330

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

revelation? From the community to which they belong. a. Belonging As people existing in history, prophets belong to the communities of their birth. The contents and experiences they receive there shape their minds. As children they absorb everything around them indiscriminately; their homes and communities literally mold them. Later in their lives, through the exercise of their freedom, prophets can choose the contents and experiences they will use to search for meaning in different situations. While they still belong to a particular community, it does not hold absolute sway over them. Belonging forms not only a personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presuppositions, but also their concrete personal being. After all, we are what we think (Proverbs 23:7). Belonging, by itself, seems to end in determinism. We are what our community is. The community defines our patterns of thinking and understanding. If this alone is the origin of the hermeneutical presuppositions we use in historical reasoning, does it not mean that our community thinks in and for us, and that we are unable to think truly for ourselves? This amounts to cultural determinism. You might well ask if we have found ourselves in a circular argument. If we can only understand something through our presuppositions, and our presuppositions are determined by our cultures, does it not mean we can only understand what our cultural origins allow? If so, we approach the text of the Bible with our own presuppositions, determined by culture, and come back with an understanding of the Bible that fits those presuppositions. In other words, we only get out of the text what we bring to it. Such a notion would produce many different interpretations of the Bible, all valid, by scholars of different cultures, resulting in theological relativism and religious pluralism. To break this vicious cycle, human freedom must intervene. b. Freedom and Presuppositions Why are we so often inclined to conclude that our cultural background

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

331

predetermines our knowledge in general and our understanding of Scripture in particular? We make this mistake when we overemphasize cultural belonging and ignore the role of the free will. While cultural belonging certainly determines the starting point of understanding, the hermeneutical approach to human knowledge strongly disagrees with cultural predestination.5 Every person’s thinking is shaped by their culture during their earliest years, but as they approach adulthood they discover freedom and begin to exercise it. If belonging controls them, they eventually surrender most of their freedom to culture— as some existentialist authors believe most people do. But they do not have to do so. To think hermeneutically requires that we choose which authority to consult for our presuppositions, as it is impossible to create them ourselves. Obviously, most people choose to trust their cultures. The other option is to choose our presuppositions “from the things themselves.”6 What, then, are the “things themselves?” In Gadamer’s example of a literary critic, they are the texts in question.7 For a doctor they may be patients. For Christians studying revelation-inspiration, the things themselves consist of the revelation of God in Scripture. We might compare the experience of obtaining our presuppositions about Scripture with our Christian experience itself. In the latter, we have the choice between basing our presuppositions about God and Christianity on what pastors and other believers tell us, or on what Scripture says about them. The same goes for Scripture itself; either we choose to believe what others tell us about it, or what the Bible says about itself. As free agents the Bible writers could choose their presuppositions. We must not think of them as mere products of their communities and times. But if they are not, how did prophets shape their presuppositions? If they were free, might they not have chosen the wrong presuppositions, and thereby distorted divine revelation? These questions require that we examine how the prophets were prepared to record God’s revelation. c. The Prophets’Sanctification

HOME PAGE 332

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

God carefully chose the people who would write His word. The Bible describes the call of people who became writers of Scripture, for example, Moses in the Old Testament (Exodus 3:2, 4, 10), and Paul in the New (Acts 9:4-6, 15-16; 13:2-3). From these examples we find that God did not use atheists or followers of Baal or Diana to receive his revelations. On the contrary, he called people who were already intent on serving Him. Not only did He choose the best people to write for Him, but He also prepared them to do so. In that preparation, God did not elevate their rational capabilities to understand supposedly timeless truths. However, they experienced justification and sanctification (Romans 12:1-2), thereby the transformation of their minds’ patterns. This is how, according to the historical-cognitive model, God prepared the biblical writers for their task. In other words, God did not prepare them supernaturally, but through his providence. The fitting of the prophets’minds took place within the stealth-indirect mode of divine operation (§81.3; see also §83.2). The prophets were prepared by their conversions. To explain, once the prophets were converted, the process of sanctification, or being set apart for God’s work, changed their minds so that they found divine teachings becoming part of their own thoughts and actions. The Holy Spirit transformed the writers’perspectives from human to divine by enabling them to understand and apply previous revelations to their own lives, a process available to all the people in their communities. In other words, God selected His chosen instruments from the pool of converted persons. They freely chose to serve the Lord (Deuteronomy 30:1520; Joshua 24:14-24), and He changed their presuppositions. God picked His representatives not because they uncritically adjusted to the culture of their times, but because they did not. They had already begun to see things from a divine point of view and were historicall-and culturally-loaded agents— people specifically able to receive and write fresh revelations. Moreover, since sanctification transforms a person throughout their lifetime, we can safely assume that each prophet’s capacity for understanding divine revelation grew as they did, and as they received new revelations from God. Finally, we find freedom behind how each prophet applied his

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

333

presuppositions to the sources of revelation they received from God. Presuppositions, even those determined by previous revelations, do not confine the mind to a predetermined result. Instead, they take a single truth or event and open it to multiple meanings. From what they understood, prophets chose the meanings that best fit the purpose of their writings. Prophets frequently shaped their revelations by conversing with God (Exodus 3; Isaiah 6:1-13). This same freedom also appears in the four Gospels, in which the same event is described differently by each writer to accomplish different purposes.

§89. INCARNATION’S A PRIORI MODES Theologians use the term a priori, Latin for “from the former,” to describe something that occurs or exists before and independent from something else. For example, Christ’s incarnation took the form of a human being. Humanity, therefore, is a priori— prior to and independent from— Jesus’ incarnation. The a priori characteristics of human nature were assumed by Christ and shaped His concrete form; in other words, Christ’s being as a human was determined by what it meant to be human.

1. The Prophetic A Priori When we discuss the prophetic a priori, we refer to everything the prophets brought to the reception of divine revelation. We may divide the prophetic a priori into two types— formal and material. The formal a priori includes cognitive and linguistic modes that all prophets share in their humanity. We have seen that revelation is incarnated in human beings. But this incarnation is not like Christ’s, which involved the divine nature incarnating itself in human nature, an incarnation of being. In revelation, we have the incarnation of knowledge within human minds, specifically, in human language. The material a priori refers to the sum of experiences and ideas each individual writer brings to the reception and processing of divinely originated meaningful forms.

HOME PAGE 334

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Both formal and material a prioris were in place, for example, when God revealed Himself to Moses. A proper understanding of the revelation process, then, must include not only the divine operations through which God created the sources-means of revelation, but also their reception by the biblical writers. This reception is not neutral because the prophets, as historical beings, bring to the reception a formal and a material a priori that shapes the process of reception. The formal a priori sets the general characteristics and limits for the incarnation of divine revelation— what kind of language it will be in, for instance. The material a priori sets the presuppositions that biblical writers need to receive the sources of revelation, such as the assumption that God exists, can and does speak to individuals living in time and space. Since to receive revelation is to interpret it, we must understand these presuppositions and how they function as revelation is incarnated. In this section, we will deal with the prophets’ formal a priori. We will deal with the material a priori in the next section (§90).

2. Contents and Mode To understand the function of the a priori, we must explore the subtle but important distinction between content (material) and mode (form). Here content and mode refer to human knowledge. The content of knowledge is what we know; the mode of knowledge refers to how we know what we know. Humans begin by identifying new knowledge with the things already familiar to them. Your reading of this book, for instance, is adding content to your knowledge of the Bible. The material a priori is the knowledge present in your mind before you started reading the book. In the case of the biblical writers, they processed the meaningful forms they received from God based on knowledge they already had concerning history and geography (dates, places, events), ideas (love, goodness, sin), and teachings (wisdom, doctrines). But what we know is different than how we know. We seldom reflect on the way we think. We just do it. For example, cats and dogs “know and speak” differently from humans. In some respects their knowledge and speech resemble

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

335

ours; they use their eyes to gather information and communicate by making sounds. Our thinking differs greatly from theirs, however, on the level of abstraction, and the ability to choose how we form our knowledge. This example shows that cognitive activities vary with the kind of being that possesses them. As God the Father is a real being, so Jesus the God-man is a real being. We can reflect on the kind of beings they are, personality and character (content), or we can reflect on how the divine and human natures co-exist (mode). In theology, we do the latter when we speak of divine and human natures. Speaking of the “nature” of something simply means to reflect on its characteristics. When we speak of the modes of revelation, we are referring to the characteristics of human knowledge that make it what it is.

3. The Modes of Human Knowledge Divine revelation was incarnated in the human modes of knowledge and language. While these modes do not determine the contents, or what becomes known, they do dictate limitations on how divine revelation and inspiration can operate. If God is to communicate His thoughts to human beings, He must use their language, that is, within the human modes of knowledge and writing. As we have studied, God’s nature, however infinite, is still temporal, allowing Him to condescend to the human level and communicate with humans in a way they can understand. This implies God’s revelation begins at the level of human thinking and writing, not to mention human knowledge itself. In other words, the sources of revelation did not start at the divine level only to be somehow “translated” to human thinking, as one would translate something from a more complex language to an easier one. (This is in contrast to the classical view; see §38.2.) Because of this limitation, prophetic thought and writing will demonstrate the characteristics of human modes. The perfection of divine thinking and writing is not present in Scripture. a. Characteristics of Human Knowledge Since only God can experience divine knowledge, we have no idea of how

HOME PAGE 336

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

God knows, other than what He tells us in Scripture. We read there that by comparison with God’s perfect mode of knowledge, our human mode appears imperfect (Job 36:4; 37:16). But even when considered alone, the human mode of knowledge is incomplete. Not surprisingly, many believe that God operated by way of His divine, perfect mode of knowledge in the process of revelation. To explain further, the perfection of divine knowledge involves, for instance, unlimited reach (omniscience— Hebrews 4:13; 1 John 3:20), exact accuracy (Psalm 38:9; 139:118; 147:5; Matthew 10:30), and absolute truthfulness (John 14:6). By contrast, the human mode of knowledge is limited in reach, inexact in accuracy, and partial in truthfulness. Human knowledge is limited to the few facts we gather over time; we never have a complete picture of anything, not even our own lives. HansGeorg Gadamer,explains that knowledge is circular because we understand the whole from the parts and the parts from the whole.8 This circle never ends because we learn of the parts one at the time, and we inevitably forget some. Indeed, perfect memory, an irreplaceable part of perfect knowledge, is not a human capability. Moreover, human knowledge can never reach absolute accuracy. Accuracy is a scientific ideal reached only in degrees of approximation. We cannot know everything there is to know nor all the details involved in one single truth or aspect of reality. We see only glimpses.9 Absolute accuracy is a scientific myth. In all this we see that humans can reach only partial, imperfect knowledge of truth. That knowledge is always in development, never obtaining truth absolutely, but always pursuing it. The reality of human knowledge is that it is partial and can contain error and self-deception. These characteristics of human knowledge made Christ’s temptations possible. They were the fabric into which divine revelation was woven in the minds of the biblical writers. Those who believe that the knowledge within revelation is God’s own, perfect knowledge believe that a perfect God can only operate in a perfect mode. On this basis, some have believed Scripture was written in language specifically suited for divine use. But as anyone who has read the Bible in its original languages can attest, its writers thought and composed Scripture within the normal, imperfect modes of human knowledge and language.

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

337

b. Characteristics of Human Language Language is intimately related to knowledge, for knowledge must always be described with words. But the two are different phenomena. Language is the most accurate way of communicating to human beings. Yet, just as with knowledge, human language is far from perfect. For instance, different human languages have different levels of sophistication. Not every thought has a word to describe it; one word may mean several totally unrelated things; another might change meanings according to the context.

4. Divine Revelation: Perfection Within Imperfection While God’s mode of cognition is perfect, the human cognition and language into which revelation is incarnated is all too imperfect. Does that mean that Scripture contains imperfections? At the level of the human vehicle, yes, but not at that of the revealed content. Let us return to Jesus’ incarnation. Was His human being perfect? Not if one compares it with God’s perfect being. The point of the incarnation was not the perfection or imperfection of Christ’s being, but of His mission and total obedience to God (John 5:19; 8:28; 15:15), especially His death on the cross (Luke 22:42)— perfect mission and obedience in an imperfect mode of existence. The purpose of Scripture is to communicate God’s thoughts to us (see Amos 4:13). This communication refers to the content, not to the cognition and language. In the Bible an imperfect vehicle communicates perfect truth. The problem is this: separating the content from the vehicle is impossible. Some believe thought inspiration allows theologians to sift human imperfection out and secure the perfect message. Yet, the teachings they call central are chosen arbitrarily and remain inseparably united to human knowledge and language. Scripture is an inseparable whole of mode and content. To remove the cognitive and linguistic modes is to remove the content. The imperfect perfection of Scripture puts its reliability and truthfulness in the right context, which we will explore in our last chapter.

HOME PAGE 338

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

§90. INCARNATION’S A PRIORI CONTENTS In this section we will finish the discussion on the contents of the prophetic a priori. To begin, Christ’s incarnation brings up the question of heredity. What did Christ inherit from His human side of the family? Particularly, how did He relate to sin by birth, aside from Satan’s temptations? These questions obviously go beyond questions of language and culture to the very experience of what it means to be human. In the incarnation of revelation, we ask similar questions. How did the prophets relate to sin by birth? How do tradition and community affect a prophet’s reception of revelation? These questions also go beyond cognition and linguistics to the content of the prophetic a priori. What do the prophets bring to the event of revelation from God? Where do these contents originate? The prophetic a priori brings to the content of the Bible each writer’s constitution, experiences, and education (Figure 1).

1. Constitution Constitution, here, means the nature human beings receive at birth. Does it consist primarily of nature (what a person receives at birth), nurture (how a person is raised by their family and culture), or freedom (they determine their constitution themselves)? This is a hotly contested philosophical issue. During the Enlightenment, rationalists thought all people were born with a set of innate ideas that work like software for scientific thinking; that is, everyone was born with a set of hermeneutical presuppositions. Later in

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

339

Figure 1: The Material Prophetic A priori the debate, empiricists thought that people inherit no ideas at birth. Each infantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mind is a tabula rasaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; a blank slate. Today, we know that both ideas were wrong. When we are born, we do not inherit any ideas or presuppositions; yet properly speaking, we are not a tabula rasa either. Each human being inherits from their parents a specific mental and physical constitution that affects how he or she knows things. Our constitution can be compared to computer hardware. As different computers are manufactured for different kinds of connections, so different human minds come better prepared to connect better with some things than others. For instance, my mind connects better to abstract thinking than to emotional experiences. Different computer peripherals allow for different information processes; a computer with a scanner can do certain things a computer with a mere webcam cannot. Human minds are similar; mine is better prepared to see the connection between ideas than between written words, so when I read, my attention and perception focus on ideas rather than letters or words. I cannot see both at the same time. Hence, I am a professor and author, not a book editor. Their differing mental hardware directly affected how the different prophets received and interpreted divine revelation. For instance, we might say Paul was less sensitive to emotional issues than David or Solomon.

HOME PAGE 340

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

These differences are not negative to revelation, but completely necessary. As each biblical writer came better equipped for some tasks than others, they dealt with some issues and disregarded others.

2. Cultural Experience Experience includes all events in the life of a person within their concrete environment (§88.2.a). Prophets are not stripped of all that ever happened to them as they receive revelation and write Scripture. They continue to function as historical beings. As we will see, not all experiences are the same, nor do they play out in the same way as presuppositions. Moreover, because prophets were sinful people like everyone else, by revelation God always risks accidental misunderstanding or willful tampering. This danger is compounded by the fact that human sinfulness affected their environment as well as the prophets themselves. Left to their own constitutions, experiences, and consequent presuppositions, prophets inevitably would have altered divine revelation, turning God’s truth into a lie (Romans 1:25). God therefore had to intervene to prepare each prophet’s a priori not only for receiving divine revelation, but for understanding it as well.

3. Education God prepares the prophet through a process of education beginning at birth. Scripture emphasizes the importance of education to transform the lives of believers and the community of faith (Exodus 18:20; Deuteronomy 4:10, 5:31, 6:7; Matthew 28:2). Education is not merely the transmission of information, but the shaping of parameters through which we live and understand the world. In the hands of God, education is a tool to transform human lives into His image.10 In that process, the Holy Spirit helps us to receive and understand the teachings and will of God,11 which shapes who we are (our characters) and what we think (our presuppositions).12

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

341

To do this God uses as an objective means existing special revelation (§83.2). Understanding, accepting, and living according to these prior revelations, then, shaped the Bible writers’ presuppositions. This involved not only divine initiative and operation, but also the exercise of prophetic freedom (§88.2.b). By entering into God’s salvation (§88.2.c), prophets were made fit to receive, interpret, appreciate, and communicate divine revelations. Again, we see no evidence of special transformation or elevation of the human, rational capabilities, but rather a transformation of presuppositions. In other words, God did not change His writers’hardware, but their software. Still, prophets could rebel and use their freedom to tamper with God’s sources of revelation. To prevent this, the Holy Spirit also guides the process of writing, in inspiration.

§91. INCARNATION’S OPERATION Christ’s incarnation took place as He lived among us. As we consider Jesus’ experience, we might well ask how He lived in the real world, and how he did what He did. Likewise, revelation’s incarnation operated as a cognitive process in the mind of the biblical writers; it was a real event in space and time. How did the divine and human relate to each other in this event? We will probe this question based on the foundations we have laid within this chapter.

1. Incarnation as Interpretation The incarnation of revelation occurred as interpretation within the minds of the biblical writers. Each one received and processed the sources God gave them. The doctrine of Scripture asserts that the prophets did not interpret these sources based on what was in their minds, but according to God’s will (2 Peter 1:20-21). How was that possible? After all, interpretation involves the possibility of error and distortion. To arrive at correct interpretations, prophets must have possessed the right presuppositions about what they received. Errors in prior understanding might have generated errors as the new meaningful forms were received. Consequently,

HOME PAGE 342

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

before calling a biblical writer, God prepared the prophet to be able to interpret His messages correctly. In other words, God chose agents who had accepted Him as God and had already changed their minds and lives accordingly. Moreover, God did not change the prophets’lives any differently than He did anyone else; there was no supernatural intervention. On the contrary, God prepared their minds by operating in stealth mode, in the process of human redemption and education (§81.3, §83). Consequently, prophets understood God from His own viewpoint as revealed in Scripture. They could, so to speak, put themselves in God’s shoes.

2. Presuppositions Involved Scripture speaks to the same assumptions the classical, evangelical, and modern models of revelation-inspiration imported from Greek philosophy, such as the nature of God, His interaction with history, and human nature and sin. These all form the grid from which the prophet interpreted new revelation. Each writer’s prior assumptions about divine things placed biblical writers on “God’s side.” As they formed their interpretations, the prophets were free, for instance, to include or exclude facts and issues from their writings. Luke hints at this in the introduction to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-3). But they did not use their freedom as an opportunity to make sense of revelation from their own private or cultural viewpoints. In other words, their viewpoints affected how they interpreted revelation, but they were more concerned with understanding and expressing God’s message

3. Levels of Operation As the prophets received revelation from God in meaningful forms, divinity became forever incarnated in human thought and language in at least two major levels of operation: divine condescension and prophetic reception/interpretation. These levels assume what we have discussed about the historical interpretation of divine and human natures (§69-72), the modes of divine activity (§81), and the human modes of knowledge and language (§89.3).

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

343

Both levels operated within the same cognitive and linguistic forms. Human language and expression served as the nature assumed by the meaningful forms God generated (divine condescension) and the humans received (interpretation). The meaningful forms shared the limitations and imperfections natural to created human beings. Any divine form of knowledge or language is understood only by God; scriptural revelation only hints at it, since it is expressed in human modes. Revelation was incarnated in the relationship between the meaningful forms and their reception/interpretation by human writers. Human thought and language became part of revelation forever as God condescended to reveal His thoughts within the limitations of those forms. He did not ask human writers to translate his perfect thoughts into human language; He took the initiative to speak to them in their own language. This is the primary component in the incarnation of revelation. However, that incarnation is not limited to divine condescension. Revelation is communication, and therefore requires a human receptor. Only then is the incarnation complete. Because of the writers’ conversions, consecration, and faithfulness, God was able to use their interpretation of his meaningful forms as an inseparable aspect of His revelation. Thus, the concrete human perspectives of Scripture’s writers became part of the truths they imparted to us in those writings. We cannot overemphasize the inseparableness of the divine and human contributions to the incarnation of revelation. The whole Bible is fully human and fully divine.

4. Primacy of the Sources of Revelation Interpretation is always decided by its object, never by the interpreter (§71.2.b and c). In order to understand it correctly, the interpreter must change according to the characteristics of the object. Why is it that we repeatedly return to the object of our study? Because each time we approach it, we grasp a new aspect that reflects back on our prior understanding. As our prior assumptions mature, we can penetrate deeper into our object of study and better interpret it. Our interpretations grow ever more objective because our presuppositions are not superimposed by our imagination or culture, but

HOME PAGE 344

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

from the object itself— in this case, the text of Scripture. Gadamer explains the objectivity of interpretation: “A person who is trying to understand is always projecting. He projects a meaning for the text as a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges in the text. Again the initial meaning emerges only because he is reading the text with particular expectations in regard to a certain meaning. Working out this pre-projection, which is constantly revised in terms of what emerges as he penetrates into the meaning, is understanding what is there.”13 According to Gadamer, we receive and understand the object by expecting it to be something. Nevertheless as we receive the object, or read the text, we perceive something unexpected within it. This new aspect forces us to revise what we project onto the object, or into the text. Our preunderstanding or presuppositions become gradually more objective. Gadamer used a literary text as an example. For biblical writers, the object of interpretation may be an earlier text (such as previous special revelation or historical revelation) or any other source of revelation. Let me give a personal example. When I was ten years old, I spent summer vacations in my grandparents’home. It was summer and, as was customary, everyone took a long siesta in the middle of the day. Since I was too young to appreciate midday naps, I tried everything to make the time pass more quickly. One day during the siesta, I spotted a small brown New Testament. I knew I was supposed to read the Bible, but up until now I had been busy being a kid. But now I had plenty of time. So I opened the little book and scanned over its pages trying to “land”on the right spot. Then I saw it— Romans! That looked like fun. I immediately thought of the Roman empire, gladiators, and all sorts of intrigue. As Gadamer describes, I projected my imagination into what I was reading, expecting to find out something about the Roman wars. At the time I was disappointed that Paul’s letter has very little to do with that. Since then, through many readings of Romans and the rest of the Bible, my assumptions have been completely replaced. In fact, my presuppositions continue to change every time I read Romans. As an old pastor told me when I was a kid, “Each time one reads Scripture one finds new things.” This ever-increasing objectivity played the same role as the Bible writers

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

345

interpreted the objects God presented to them: the meaningful forms. The prophets’ interpretations were not their own. God determined how they understood revelation through its sources, as each was received, understood, and written about. Thus, the incarnation of revelation consists of human interpretation dependent on the objectivity and primacy of its divine origin. In Scripture, the thoughts of God became the thoughts of humans.

§92. REVIEW • When we say revelation was “incarnated,” we must define what that means. To say we subscribe to an “incarnational view of inspiration” assumes that we interpret how the word of God was incarnated. In other words, it is not enough to recognize the fact of incarnation; incarnation must be defined. In the historical-cognitive model, incarnational inspiration refers to how revelation entered the thought and language of the biblical writers. • The incarnation of christ: an explanatory tool. The incarnation of God in Christ and the incarnation of revelation in the Bible are similar, but we cannot use our knowledge of the incarnation of God in Christ to explain directly the doctrine of revelation-inspiration. Instead, we must study each incarnation on its own. Only after those studies are complete can one speak of their similarities. In this chapter, we use the analogy between the two as a tool of explanation, not a source of interpretation.

• The structure of revelation’s incarnation. The incarnation of revelation took place as a subject-object relationship between the prophets and the meaningful forms they received from God. The free interaction between these forms and the Bible writers’ presuppositions shaped how those writers thought, resulting in the incarnation in human thought and language of divine ideas.

HOME PAGE 346

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

• The Locus of Incarnation. The incarnation of divine knowledge took place within the cognitive experiences of the biblical writers, that is, within their mental capacities and histories. This assertion assumes a historical understanding of human nature (§70) and reason (§71-72). • Prophets as historical beings. Prophets were human beings just as we are (James 5:17). Divinity did not change their natures nor how their minds functioned. God did not elevate their natures and rational powers to fit superhuman, timeless contents. According to biblical teaching on human nature, they did not have a timeless soul that could be elevated to receive such timeless meaningful forms (§70.3). • The prophets’historical reason. Historical reason operates through interpretation, while interpretation operates through presuppositions. Presuppositions are frames of reference for new knowledge (see §24.3). In the historical view of reason, a person’s life experiences and learning shape their frames of reference— their presuppositions. • Prophetic presuppositions belong to a community. As historical human beings, prophets belong to the community of their birth. The contents and experiences they receive there shape their minds. During childhood, a person absorbs everything indiscriminately. The home and community literally mold an individual. • Prophetic presuppositions are not culturally determined. Cultural opinions do not dictate prophetic assumptions, but the sources of revelation do. • God prepared the prophets’presuppositions. In fitting them for receiving his revelation, God did not elevate the prophets’

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

347

rational capabilities to fit the supposedly timeless contents of supernatural truths. He did, however, transform their minds through the experiences of justification and sanctification (Romans 12:1-2). • The prophetic a priori. The prophetic a priori refers to everything that the prophets brought to the reception of divine revelation. We may divide the prophetic a priori in two types— formal and material. • The formal apriori. The formal a priori includes cognitive and linguistics modes that all prophets share because of their humanness–that is, the languages they speak and the ways they think. • The material a priori. The material a priori refers to the sum of experiences and ideas that each of he biblical writers brought to the reception and processing of divine revelation in meaningful forms. • Mode (formal a priori) and contents (material a priori). Content and mode refer to human knowledge, which occurs in different ways. Knowledge as content refers to what we know; knowledge as mode refers to how we know what we know. • Divine and human modes of knowledge. The divine mode of knowledge is perfect, in contrast with the imperfection of the human mode. Divine knowledge is, for instance, unlimited in reach (omniscience–Hebrews 4:13; 1 John 3:20), exact in accuracy (Psalms 38:9; 139:1-18; 147:5; Matthew 10:30), and absolute in truthfulness (John 146). By contrast, human knowledge is limited in reach, inexact in accuracy, and partial in truthfulness. • The imperfect perfection of divine revelation.

HOME PAGE 348

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Biblical revelation is both imperfect and perfect without contradiction because both affirmations refer to different things. Because God gives revelation within the human modes of knowledge and language, it shares their limitations–their imperfections. But though these modes are imperfect, God can still use them to communicate his views; therefore the content of Scripture is perfect. • Revelation’s content and vehicle: inseparable. Separating the content from the vehicle is absolutely impossible. Some believe thought inspiration allows theologians to sift human imperfection out and secure the perfect message. But even the teachings they arbitrarily retain are still inseparable united to human modes of knowledge and language. Scripture is an inseparable whole of mode and content. To remove the cognitive and linguistic modes supplied by the human writers is to remove the contents given by God. • The prophet’s constitution. Human constitution refers to the inherited physical and mental makeup that plays a similar role to computer hardware. Each individual receives a different constitution affecting their thinking and writing. • The prophet’s cultural background. Cultural experience includes all events in the life of a person within a concrete environment (§88.2.a). Prophets are not stripped of their everyday experiences as they receive revelation and write Scripture. They continue to be and to function as historical beings. • The prophet’s education. God prepares the prophet through an education that begins at birth. Education is not merely the transmission of information, but the shaping of a viewpoint from which we live and understand the world. As the prophets grew as people, the Holy Spirit used their education

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

349

to shape their characters and presuppositions. • Incarnation as interpretation. The incarnation of revelation in the mind of biblical writers operated as interpretation. They received and interpreted meaningful sources given by God. Accurate reception required that their prior assumptions also be given by God. • The prophet’s prior assumptions for interpretation. God called prophets whom He had already made able to interpret His messages correctly. There was no supernatural act involved that set them apart from everyone else. Instead, God prepared their assumptions and presuppositions in the process of their redemption and education–something He does for everyone in His stealth mode of operation (§81.3 and §83). • The incarnation of revelation as divine condescension. Revelation was incarnated as the human writers received and interpreted meaningful forms given to them by God. Humans forms of knowledge and language became part of revelation forever as God condescended to reveal His thoughts within those limitations. God did not ask human writers to translate His thoughts into human language, but did it Himself. Humanity became part of revelation as God produced the sources of revelation, which were recorded by the prophets in human thought and language. This is the primary component in the incarnation of revelation. • The incarnation of revelation as prophetic reception/interpretation. The incarnation of revelation is not simply the production of sources of revelation in human forms. Because revelation is communication, it requires reception by a person. Incarnation requires a human receptor. Because of the prophet’s conversion, consecration, and faithfulness to God, his interpretation of divine revelation became the

HOME PAGE 350

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

expression of God’s revelation through His meaningful forms. The prophets interpretations cannot be separated from revelation. Their concrete perspectives became part of the truths they imparted to us in their writings. • No prophecy of Scripture depended on an of its writer’s own interpretation. Objectivity played a central role in prophetic interpretation. God determined the prophets’ interpretation through the very sources of revelation He gave them. As they interacted with those sources through their presuppositions, the sources made corrections in those prior assumptions and thereby made the prophets’ interpretations evermore objective. This process allows us to recognize the incarnation of revelation as human interpretation, and yet keep the objectivity and primacy of the Bible’s divine origin. In Scripture, the thoughts of God became the thoughts and words of human beings.

ENDNOTES 1

For example, see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, 13 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), I/2: 499. 2

Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1991), 87-97. 3

For example, Paul J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 91. 4

Ibid.

See Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, 2d rev. ed. (New York: Continuum, 1989), 265-269.

HOME PAGE REVELATION INCARNATED

351

Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: Harper and Collins, 1962), 153; Gadamer, 265-269. 7

Gadamer, 267.

Ibid., 291.

Ellen G. White states: â&#x20AC;&#x153;It is impossible for any human mind to exhaust even one truth or promise of the Bible. One catches the glory from one point of view, another from another point; yet we can discern only gleamings. The full radiance is beyond our visionâ&#x20AC;? (Education [Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1952], 171). 10

Ibid., 236.

Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education (Nashville: Southern Publishing, 1923), 415. 12

Ellen G. White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students (Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1943), 46. 13

Gadamer, 267, emphasis mine.

HOME PAGE

17. PATTERNS OF REVELATION

Let us review the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration as we have studied it thus far. The cognitive process through which the information and ideas found in the Bible came to the minds of its writers we call “revelation” (§2.4 and §10). Knowledge, we have also seen, occurs through a subject-object relationship (§24). In the subject-object relationship of revelation, we find the role of subject played by God, as the source of the information and ideas, and the prophets, who received them as playing the role of receiving “object.” (§25). In revelation, God originated the content, or sources of revelation (see Chapter 15), and the human writers received that content. This relationship took the form of an incarnation of divine thoughts. God condescended to translate his thoughts into human cognitive forms. Prophets received these thoughts as they would other thoughts, except for their source. In other words, the humanity of the prophets dictated both the modes (how they knew) and the contents (what they were able to know) of what God told them (Chapter 16). Did the divine and human agencies always follow the same concrete pattern from beginning to end? Or does the evidence point to a variety of patterns? Our study has revealed that both God and the prophets acted in different ways. Thus, no single pattern of explanation can do justice to the variety of divine and human activities that generated Scripture. This chapter

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

353

attempts to answer the question of what patterns those activities followed. The patterns we will consider here include the theophanic, verbal, prophetic, historical, existential, and wisdom. We will close by considering some general features of revelation from the perspective of the historical-cognitive model.

§93. CLARIFICATION Before considering some examples of the patterns of revelation, let us make some definitions. By the word “pattern” we mean a discernible, coherent system based on the intended interrelationship between component parts. As a system of relationships, a pattern includes special arrangements or configurations of parts and procedures. Moreover, these arrangements or configurations can be repeated. The patterns of revelation are the concrete configurations taken by the incarnation of the word of God within human minds. The relationships within each configuration occur between divine sources and human reception/interpretation. In this chapter, we will look at the most obvious patterns of revelation revealed by the phenomena of Scripture; we will not cover all of them, nor exhaust the ones we present. Keep in mind, as you read, that our intent is to explore the historical-cognitive model broadly rather than in great detail. We begin with the following question: What causes the patterns to vary? Let us begin with “the things themselves”— the record of Scripture. 1. Biblical Foundation Different patterns of revelation occur in Scripture because God chose to speak in different ways. If divine wisdom saw fit to do so, we should not be surprised to find that the human beings to which He spoke received His word in many different ways as well. In other words, human variety in each pattern was determined by the divine initiative in choosing the revelatory form, not vice versa. The introduction to the epistle to the Hebrews affirms that “in the past

HOME PAGE 354

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times (? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ) and in various ways (? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ), but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:1, NAB). In this text, we find two essential characteristics of divine revelation. First, the Greek ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? comes from ? ? ? ? ? (“many”) and ? ? ? ? ? (“part”), so literally it means, “many parts,” “fragmentary,” or “pertaining to many parts.” Thus, God spoke through the prophets in many installments, the last of which was Jesus Christ. As we have alluded to earlier, God revealed himself along the course of the sequence of time. Second, the text says that God spoke “in various ways.” The word ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? is made up of two words: ? ? ? ? ? (“many”) and ? ? ? ? ? ? (“manner”). The translation “in various ways” is literally accurate. The many modes are made possible because of all the different installments. Had there been only one instance of revelation, no variety of modes would have been possible. In fact this is what we studied in Chapter 15; different meaningful forms exist due to different ways in which God revealed His content. These modes determined the existence of the various patterns of divine revelation. Why did God choose different manners of revelation? Why didn’t he simply speak in only one way— the best available?

2. Need Since nothing in the Bible addresses the issue directly, we cannot answer the question in absolute fashion; in other words, the doctrine of Scripture does not speak to the problem. But we may gain some understanding at the edges, that is, from the phenomena of Scripture. This is not an exegetical approach but a systematic one, much like that we have used in this section and throughout the book. As we explore the question, we must remember our goal is not to penetrate mysteries God has not revealed, but to understand the revelation already given us. We are searching for insight into Hebrews 1:1. By so doing we will avoid the stumbling blocks of trying to understand our object of study based on our own, independent presuppositions. We must begin from the fact that God intended Scripture as an objective

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

355

instrument of communication. Scripture presents itself as such (2 Timothy 3:16; Luke 24:27; John 5:39; Acts 17:2; Romans 15:4, 16:26; 1 Corinthians 10:11). God devised Scripture as a tool for revealing himself to all peoples in all ages. As such a tool, Scripture assumes what must be said and who will hear or read it. Its hugely diverse audience may explain the repetitions one finds in its pages, such as the four gospels. In other words, saying the same thing over in different words or ways might reach someone who didn’t understand or absorb the message the first time. But perhaps a better explanation for the diversity of the Bible’s contents is the diversity of issues God wanted to address. The doctrine and phenomena of Scripture cover historical, existential, prophetic, theological, practical, and strategic issues. It might well be that God chose the patterns according to the nature of each of these issues. If so, we are able to identify the main patterns of divine revelation.

3. Types God’s different approaches to revealing himself produced several types of revelatory sources (§82-83). These different approaches meant that the human recipients received revelation in different ways, even though the pattern always took place within a cognitive relationship between God and people. Different types of meaningful forms meant that the human writers were called upon to play different roles. In other words, they were asked to perform different cognitive activities. Despite different forms, each pattern consisted of a concrete, divine-human engagement through which the specific, cognitive word of God became incarnate in human thought and language. Here, we will examine only the most obvious patterns of divine revelation, based on our analysis of the sources of revelation. These patterns, as we mentioned above, are the theophanic, verbal, prophetic, historical, existential, and wisdom. Although other patterns account for large portions of Scripture, most books involve multiple patterns in their production— usually one or more of the first five. We will never know exactly how the divine and human agencies interacted in each instance; moreover, we would not benefit significantly from

HOME PAGE 356

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

such precision. But by examining these main patterns of interaction, we may gain a better sense of how to understand Scripture and its authority. And even though we will introduce these six patterns, remember that the pattern of revelation for each book of Scripture is unique, so each book must be studied individually. Consequently, we should never decide what the revelatory pattern of a particular book is without studying its doctrine and phenomena. For instance, we might assume that since the book of Daniel is a prophetic book, its entire contents must have been produced from the prophetic pattern of revelation. But as we analyze the book, we find large patterns in the historical pattern of revelation, and even a few verses in the existential. Even in some of the shorter writings, we find divine revelation operating in several patterns. Before addressing each pattern individually and focusing on their distinctiveness, let us consider what they have in common, the hermeneutical structure shared by all revelatory patterns.

4. Hermeneutical Structure In §87, we learned that the incarnation of God’s thoughts and information happened when biblical writers received the sources of revelation and interpreted them from their own experiential point of view. Here we must explore this idea further, beyond the basic subject-object structure. In order to properly understand each pattern, we need to see how God used the means of revelation He created as instruments to shape the thoughts and information in the minds of the biblical writers. In many cases we are aware of what the Bible writers did to record the information, and are tempted to overlook God’s role in those instances. In other cases, when God was revealing information and ideas in open mode, we find difficulty in distinguishing between God’s generation of the meaningful forms, and the writer’s interpretation of them— since they happen simultaneously. When God operates in stealth mode, the difference is more obvious because the meaningful forms were clearly generated some time before they were recorded by the writer. To explain further, past scholars have assumed that God gives the content

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

357

of revelation and the prophet receives it, nothing more. The divine generation of meaningful forms is so powerful that it impresses the truth of the revelation into the prophet’s mind by sheer force. The classical and evangelical models of revelation-inspiration hold to this miraculous view of revelation. But according to the historical-cognitive model, God generates the meaningful forms within the limitations of time, history, and the human modes of thought and language. Merely showing some truth to the prophet does not insure that the prophet will receive the message. Thus, while God generates the forms, He also uses them to cause understanding in the prophet’s mind. Let us examine the case of Moses’ visit with God at the burning bush in Exodus 3:1-4:17, in which God both enters and explains the dynamics of revelation. We pick up the story in 4:10. After introducing himself, God expresses His desire to send Moses to Pharaoh. Moses explains to God why the Almighty should find someone else: “Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither recently nor in time past, nor since you have spoken to your servant; for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” God answers, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?”Then God promises to be with Moses: “Now then go, and I, even I, will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say.” Moses is not convinced. He refuses the divine mission gently: “Please, Lord, now send the message by whomever you will.” Angry, God answers Moses’s objection again: “Is there not your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he speaks fluently. And moreover, behold, he is coming out to meet you; when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. You are to speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I, even I, will be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach you what you are to do.” God reveals here how he interacts with those who will speak for Him. Clearly, God is not forcing Moses, but attempting to persuade Him. By making His explanation, God is teaching Moses about himself and about what to expect as His chosen messenger. He promises to teach Moses what to say and what to do (Exodus 4:13,15). God forces neither the truth of the message nor the divine calling on him. Within their conversation, God generates the means of revelation for Moses and uses them. In the theophanic pattern, of which this story is an

HOME PAGE 358

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

example, God generates words by speaking them and uses them to teach truths to the biblical writer. These truths include, in this example, the nature of the divine being (Exodus 3:14-15), Moses’ commission as a prophet, and the dynamics of the hermeneutical structure of revelatory patterns— that is, Moses begins with one set of beliefs that is not immediately corrected by the revelation; God has to persuade him. The general structure of revelatory patterns, then, is hermeneutical or interpretive. God and the prophet enter into a cognitive relationship. God initiates and directs the relationship. He creates and uses various sources of revelation, while the prophet receives them. God does not passively accept the receptioninterpretation of His chosen messenger, but instead teaches the messenger until he understands what God wants to say. And as we see from Moses’example, the messenger does not automatically accept what God says even when he knows exactly Who he is talking to. The prophet discusses the issue or information with God either through dialogue (in direct revelation) or reflection (in indirect revelation). Through this dialogue with God, the truth becomes incarnate in the mind of the prophet, almost as if God were a master teacher and the prophet a loyal disciple. Both parties act in complete freedom.

§94. THEOPHANIC PATTERN The theophanic pattern, in which God reveals Himself directly, is key to understanding the other patterns of revelation in the Bible, even though the number of revelations produced in the pattern are few in number and usually quite short in length.

1. Divine Role As we explored in §81, theophanies produce revelation in the openmiraculous-direct mode of divine operation. As the visible and audible presence of God in space and time, theophanies ground revelation in historical, temporal, spatial cognition. They demonstrate that God condescended to engage the human mind in its normal, everyday function.

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

359

Human receptivity was not called upon to translate divine timeless thoughts into human form; theophanies clearly show that God has translated His thoughts for humans Himself. As He did so, the cognitive content of the revelation was contained within words uttered by the divine being. In the example we just looked at, God appeared in an angelic form in a burning bush. By appearing visibly, God set the stage for communicating his revelation directly to Moses in the course of conversation. In other words, the knowledge God revealed came directly through Moses’eyes and ears as God appeared and spoke to him. That said, we must keep several things in mind. That He was able to appear and speak demonstrates that there is nothing in God’s being preventing him from becoming visible to human beings. We must not confuse God’s mere appearance to people with the information or ideas He gave them at that time. Also, according to Scripture, divine invisibility is not due to God’s being (his ontological nature); in other words, God is invisible not because divinity is by definition beyond human sight, but because He utterly abhors sin. A very few people in the Bible actually saw God (Exodus 24:9-10; Judges 13:17-22), though at a distance (Exodus 33:21-23) and always based on God’s condescension.

2. Human Role What is the place or function of the human writer who receives revelation? Moses interpreted what he was hearing and seeing as coming from God; he knew the words and the being speaking them were divine revelation. The miraculously generated physical forms, the fire and the angel, strongly indicated the divine presence. Yet, someone else, a pagan perhaps, might have interpreted them differently. But Moses immediately understood not only the words, but also the intention of God’s address to him, so he was able to converse with God. By so doing, he, Moses, contributed to the content of Scripture. After all, God’s answers to the prophet’s questions were part of what happened during the theophany, and therefore of the revealed content of Scripture. Moses received what God revealed through his human powers of perception. We may assume that when he later wrote down what happened, he relied on his

HOME PAGE 360

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

memory. God might have chosen to repeat the event in a vision or dream, but it would have been unnecessary to produce the text as we have it. The historicalcognitive model assumes that the text was written solely from the information obtained during the theophanic event. To summarize, in the theophanic pattern of revelation, the contents of Scripture were derived from the open-miraculous-direct mode of divine communication. Human interpretation and contribution were present but minimal.

§95. VERBAL PATTERN Scripture does not support the dictation or verbal theories of inspiration, though it does indicate that inspiration somehow reaches the level of the words; in other words, revelation was incarnated in words as symbols of meaning. We will come back to this point in the next chapter. For now, though, the theophanic pattern of revelation shows that God did speak directly to prophets as He saw fit. A few times, God Himself chose to write particularly significant statements, such as the Decalogue (Exodus 31:18), and the handwriting on the wall during Belshazzar’s feast, just before the fall of Babylon (Daniel 5:5, 24).1 Although God produced these pieces, He is still using human language. There is no input by a human being, only open-miraculous-direct communication. These few instances of verbal revelation tell us God could have written Scripture Himself, even if he was limited to the human modes of thinking. Thus in the verbal pattern of revelation, God is in full control and the human factor comes in on the level of the modes of knowledge and language only. No human writer interpreted or contributed to the content of revelation.

§96. PROPHETIC PATTERN The prophetic pattern of revelation originated many biblical discourses. In

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

361

Scripture, prophets were mostly teachers and only occasionally foretold the future. The prophetic pattern of revelation, then, gave rise not only to prophecies of the future, but also non-predictive discourse on many issues. Scripture contains much more extensive portions resulting from this pattern than from the theophanic or verbal patterns; one example is Peter’s vision in Acts 10:11-16. The study of this pattern is important because the classical and evangelical models use it for explaining the origin of the entire Bible.

1. Biblical Description The introduction to the book of Revelation explains the structure of the prophetic pattern: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his bondservants, the things which must soon take place; and he sent and communicated it by his angel to his bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. (1:1-3)

God gave the content of Revelation to Jesus Christ, who communicated it to an angel, who brought the information to John. Christ commanded John to write a testimony of what he saw in a book (Revelation 1:11). From this description, we learn that in the prophetic pattern God operated in openmiraculous-direct mode. The information reached the prophet through supernatural visions or dreams containing visual representations and words. This pattern emphasizes the visual nature of the meaningful forms. John received/interpreted (revelation) what he saw and put it into writing (inspiration). Finally, John’s Apocalypse concerns “the things which must soon take place” (Revelation 1:1). It revolves around future events— not all future events, but those that must take place soon. This brings up another aspect of the prophetic pattern: it has a focus. Prophetic revelation (or that of any pattern) is not about random, disconnected facts, but about something in particular. That center is the reality revelatory thinking aims to illumine. Revelation is content-driven and issueoriented.

HOME PAGE 362

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

2. Divine Role Revelation 1:1 says that God “communicated” the information. The Greek verb here is shmai, n w , which literally means “signed” or “made known by signs.” In other words, in the prophetic pattern God produced visual and audible symbols and communicated them through visions or dreams. The representations might have included words, symbols, figures and events (such as in Daniel 2). In this way, God communicated things out of the natural reach of biblical prophets, just as He did in the theophanic pattern. But the two patterns remain distinct. On the one hand, prophecy took place in the mind of the prophet and tended to emphasize visual communication— hence the word “vision.” Theophany, on the other hand, took place in real space and time and tended to rely on God speaking His message audibly to His chosen writer. If we study books like Daniel and Revelation, we find that while God provides symbols as meaningful forms, those symbols never completely explain the issues they represent. They do bring to light comprehensive ideas or structures of meaning, but without any exhaustive detail of events or related issues.

3. Human Role Since God creates the contents of prophecy, we might be tempted to believe that the human writers played no role in the prophetic pattern of revelation. But Revelation 1:2, for example, tells us the book contains the written testimony of what John saw. If he was a witness, he had personal knowledge of what he saw; in other words, for him to know, he had to receive and interpret what God showed him. Consequently, the prophetic pattern requires reception and interpretation on the part of the biblical writer. John’s introduction to the book of Revelation implies that the entire volume was a product of the pattern described in the first three verses. Our view of the human role in the prophetic pattern may vary according to our presuppositions of prophecy’s reach. If the prophets had only to write down what they heard and saw, their contributions appear limited to the choice of words in

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

363

the inspiration process. But the choice of words assumes an interpretation of those visual representations and symbols they were given. Consider the following: Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across his chest with a golden sash. His head and his hair were white like white wool, like snow; and his eyes were like a flame of fire (Revelation 1:12-14, emphasis mine).

What John saw with his eyes, his mind had to process— to receive and understand. We can understand the meanings of his linguistic analogies only if we understand that we can only see them as he saw and recorded them. The comparisons he makes here were not given to him; they are a record of his interpretation. Thus, even choosing the words to describe prophetic revelation depended on the prophet’s understanding of what God gave him. But we must take the prophet’s role further. If we extend the reach of this pattern to an entire book or even a section of one, the human role does not appear to be so limited. The writers interpret what they receive and contribute to the content of revelation, for example, from their self-awareness, geographical knowledge, acceptance of prior revelation, and theological reflections. Another way the prophets contributed to the prophetic pattern was by conversing with the angels in their visions. The book of Daniel provides one example. God gave the seventy weeks prophecy to answer Daniel’s prayer (see 9:22-27). Daniel had been praying for understanding after an earlier vision (Daniel 8:2-14). When he tried to understand the vision’s symbols at the time, God had sent the angel Gabriel to help him (8:15-26). But Daniel did not find Gabriel’s assistance adequate; at the end of the chapter, he still complained that no one could explain what he had seen (8:27). So, as we follow the story, Daniel does two things. He double-checks earlier revelation— specifically, the seventy years Jeremiah had predicted for the Babylonian captivity (Daniel 9:2). Then he offers an intercessory prayer on behalf of the people of Israel, Jerusalem, and the Holy Sanctuary (Daniel 9:3-19). Why? Daniel apparently understood the previous vision to indicate that the

HOME PAGE 364

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

captivity would be longer than Jeremiah had prophesied— a possibility he found upsetting enough to pray that it would not come true. This example shows that as the prophets recorded their visions and dreams, they of necessity had to include their reception and interpretation of them. If we return to our earlier example of the book of Revelation, we find that the first nine verses do not seem to come from the vision, but from John’s self-awareness, familiarity with prior revelations, and his own theological reflections. All these became part of the human role in the prophetic pattern of revelation. God’s information was connected in the prophets’minds with what was already there; as they wrote what they received, these aspects of their human knowledge became part of the Bible. To summarize the prophetic pattern, God produced predominantly visual means of revelation through his open-miraculous-direct mode of operation. Because the writers understood the prophetic forms only in a limited way, the prophets’role in the pattern included, besides human forms of knowledge and language, the selection of words and analogies, their own self-awareness, knowledge of previous revelation, and theological reflections. In all these, the human and divine aspects of prophetic revelation were inseparably united. The cognitive word of God became the words of human writers.

§97. HISTORICAL PATTERN Large sections of Scripture fall into the historical pattern, comprising the majority of biblical narratives. Were they generated by a type of revelation like the prophetic pattern? Based on the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture, the historical-cognitive model answers no; the historical narratives represent a different pattern of divine revelation (§82.3.a). Each pattern hinges around a different mode of divine, revelatory operation. As God reveals Himself in different ways, the human agents respond by adjusting their reception and interpretation of the revelation. As we have seen, the existence of a historical pattern of revelation can be maintained from biblical presuppositions about God’s relationship to time and history (§66-69). This leads us to understand divine activities, including

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

365

revelation and inspiration, as historical (§69). Operating primarily through providence, God administrates human history. That is where this pattern, the historical pattern, comes from. God’s providence is his stealth-nonmiraculous mode of operation (see §82.3 and §83); the meaningful forms of the historical pattern of revelation are generated by the events of history, as guided by God.

1. Biblical Description The historical pattern is described by Luke in the introduction to his Gospel narrative. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4, NIV).

Luke’s decision to write the Gospel does not come from a divine command. According to him, he came up with the idea. This contrasts starkly with the prophetic pattern, a direct line of revelation from God (review John’s call in §96.1). However, the real initiative belongs to the events. What happened in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus must be understood; so Luke begins to write. In these verses, Luke presents an explicit and detailed description of the historical pattern. In the hermeneutical subject-object relationship (§24.3), the object includes the events, the original interpretation by “eyewitnesses and servants of the word,” and their transmission to Luke. His contributions included research, writing, and purpose. a. Historical Events The contents of the Gospels, as well as of the other historical sections of Scripture, did not come to the writers through theophanies, visions, or dreams, but from historical events involving God operating primarily in stealth-nonmiraculous

HOME PAGE 366

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

mode, both direct and indirect. What do we mean by “event?” Simply, an occurrence existing in space and time. Since they take place continuously, the number of historical events is practically limitless. When we speak of “historical events,”we simply refer to what happens in life. The historical events of the life of Christ, as they happened from day to day, are what Luke is referring to when he writes about “the things that have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1). The word “things” (? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ) carries the notion of present, historical happenings, but because Luke qualifies them by saying that they “have been fulfilled” (? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ) they are not mere general history. They have been brought to completion. The events Luke has in mind not only took place, but were fulfilled. This fulfillment refers to their anticipated role in the plan of salvation. In other words, the plan of salvation is a sequential ensemble of divine redemptive acts. When the historical events anticipated in the eternal plan of salvation (predestination see Ephesias 1:3-11) take place, they are “fulfilled”because their prophetic anticipation and soteriological role become real. They involve not only historical, but also direct, theological interest. The previous revelation of God came true in things that really happened “among us,” right before the eyes of Jesus’followers, things however now “past” to Luke. b. Original Reception and Interpretation Because a past event exists as memory, not as a present occurrence, its preservation in writing assumes a witness. The witness was there when the event was presently happening; he or she received and experienced it through his or her senses. An event without a witness can never become “historical” in the sense of being communicated to others. Without a witness, the event is lost in the irretrievable past. Witnesses automatically interpret the events to which they attest. There is no such a thing as an uninterpreted, pure historical event. The meaning of an event is assigned by experiencing it; such meaning springs from the event itself (object) and its reception and interpretation by the witness (subject).

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

367

Historical events are very rich in variant meanings. An automobile accident, for instance, is one event, yet the accounts of it would be as varied as the number of witnesses reporting it. This variation is due to the historicity of human knowledge (§71). Different interpretations of the same event may be complementary or contradictory. If the accounts are complementary, they probably all work within the same basic hermeneutical presuppositions. The richness of the event, together with the varying physical perspectives and the limitations of human sense and knowledge result in the variant accounts. If the accounts contradict each other, it may be due to different presuppositions. Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness of the events in his Gospel. He bases his report, however, on “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and became servants of the word” (Luke 1:2, my translation). The fact that the witnesses “became servants of the word” gives insight into their presuppositions as witnesses. That they “became servants” means that they experienced conversion based on the events they experienced. When did that conversion take place? Was it before the Gospels were written, or after? Perhaps they became witnesses and servants simultaneously, “from the beginning” of the events they witnessed. After all, the apostles began their relationship with Jesus by becoming his disciples. What they saw gradually transformed their presuppositions. Jesus’teachings and deeds had a profound impact on them; they might not have understood some things until some time after the actual events took place. This seems to have been the case with the resurrection of Christ. In the case of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus had to repair their presuppositions so that they could understand not only the fact that he had been resurrected, but its theological implications as well (Luke 24:27). A witness had to possess the right presuppositions to correctly understand the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Not only would they have to be familiar with the events of his life firsthand; they also needed the theological-historical background to which his story belonged: Old Testament revelation. Most of all, the right presuppositions required conversion to following Christ and the subsequent transformation of life and mind. In different ways, all biblical writers

HOME PAGE 368

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

came to that experience and shared the same presuppositions. c. Tradition? Was there a long line of communication between the original witnesses and Luke? Some scholars, particularly of the historical-critical method and the modern model of revelation-inspiration, propose that the narratives of the gospels depended on some real historical events, and that those who transmitted the stories about Jesus projected their theological presuppositions onto those events, distorting or even fabricating them. This picture flies in the face of Luke’s own methodological report. In his introduction, he not only emphasizes that he will report events that actually took place (Luke 1:1, 4), but affirms that he received the testimony of the original witnesses firsthand (Luke 1:2). Thus, while there was a transmission and thus a sort of “tradition,”any distortions we might associate with that term were reduced to a minimum. As we will see, Luke must have used a broad range of written and oral sources including not only apostles, but also testimonies from the community— that is, oral traditions. In that sense tradition can be a part of this historical pattern of revelation. Another sense in which tradition is present is at the level of presuppositions. That is, Bible writers shared in a set of what we might call traditional presuppositions— traditional because they all believed certain things, without which they could not correctly interpret events and write Scripture. For example, they had been both justified and sanctified, and had accepted prior revelations. These presuppositions allowed them to deal critically with indirect source material, such as that of oral traditions about Jesus of Nazareth. That said, we must mention that we must be careful when using the word “tradition.” It only refers to transmission of information, or the presuppositions associated with conversion— never to a school of theological thought that forced ideas of its own onto Jesus’ life and teachings. Such an assumption contradicts the Bible record, as we see in the next section.

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

369

d. Research Luke sifted the evidence with which he was presented as he began his book. He “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3, NIV). Thus, he was not reduced to choosing words to describe supernaturally infused thoughts. He had to research, interpret, judge, and verify the evidence— assisted, perhaps, by his close relationship with the apostle Paul. As we have said before, in none of the patterns did God have to elevate the writer’s innate powers of the mind. Their powers were natural, but sanctified by the conversion common to all believers. Luke wrote his Gospel critically, gathering and evaluating all available evidence. Like the other writers of Scripture, Luke knew that not all witnesses have the same value. Luke required that his witnesses be “servants of the word” (Luke 1:2), that is, followers of Christ. Their thinking had to be grounded in the Old Testament and in Jesus’ teachings. They had to be experiencing a transformation into the likeness of their Master. And the best witnesses were those that had been in close relation to Christ for the greatest length of time. Luke’s criteria for witnesses can be fairly compared to those used by the apostles as they gathered to select a replacement for Judas Iscariot— since he recorded that event as well. At that time, Simon Peter said, It is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us — beginning with the baptism of John until the day that he was taken up from us— one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection (Acts 1:21-22).

In the minds of the earliest believers, Jesus’disciples were considered the best witnesses to His life as God’s revelation. Luke must have agreed as he did his research. Someone may object that this criterion prevents the selection of neutral or objective witnesses in favor of those who were subjectively inclined to support the claims of Jesus and the early church. Followers of the classical and modern understandings of reason would assert that the disciples’ close involvement with Christ disqualifies them as witnesses. They would be “lacking in objectivity.” To classical and modern thinkers, presuppositions

HOME PAGE 370

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

are subjective prejudices interfering with a correct understanding of the facts. From a hermeneutical perspective, however, the disciples’ involvement with Christ made their witness objective, in the sense that the object in question— Jesus himself— was more clearly revealed the closer they came to him. The more time they spent with him, the more He could correct their presuppositions about who He was, so his disciples gradually became better able to describe to others who He was, and the theological meaning of what they saw. So they became His best witnesses. In fact they illustrate the main qualification for a writer of Scripture in any pattern: accepting God’s presuppositions and being transformed by previous revelations. e. Writing The decisions to research and to write tell us that in the historical pattern of revelation, the Bible writers used their natural rational and linguistic powers. Luke says he chose “to write an orderly account” of the “things that had been fulfilled” among them. Order implies sequence or other arrangement by purpose. Although Luke does not specify the type of order in which he presents the events, to some degree it is dictated by the events themselves. The writings derived from the historical pattern form the biblical narratives. At the time of this writing, we hear much discussion of biblical narrative and “narrative theology.” As we engage in such conversations, we must never forget that biblical narrative is not just a literary genre. The narratives in Scripture relate historical events in order to reveal God’s involvement with his covenantal community. f. Purpose Luke writes that his purpose in research and writing his gospel account is that Theophilus “may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4, NIV). The emphasis here is on “certainty.” This speaks to the factual nature of Luke’s investigation. He wants to make sure that his reader knows that the things he has been taught about Jesus are accurate. This does not refer to the spiritual certainty of faith, but to the historical certainty of the

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

371

facts on which the Christian faith is built. To say that the Gospels (or any biblical, historical writing) are mere narratives that describe inaccessible events disregards the entire effort and express intention of the biblical writers. According to them, they are writing facts. But the stories in the Bible are not mere historiographical accounts. They do ascertain what really happened, but include interpretation by the witnesses and writers, since God’s revelation in historical narratives is not only the events, but those interpretations as well. The purpose of biblical narrative, consequently, goes beyond historical certainty. After describing several episodes in Israel’s history, in 1 Corinthians Paul writes that “these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction” (10:11). Narratives, then, exist to instruct and teach those who hear or read the stories. As we interpret the historical narratives of Scripture, we must bear in mind that historical accuracy is required if the accounts are to be used to teach. As Luke explicitly underlined, historical certainty was a purpose of the Gospel writers. But this aim was subservient to the ultimate aim: to reveal God’s involvement in the history and lives of his people. As historical facts are interpreted, God’s providence in them becomes clear, and the hearers and readers of the word learn from the accounts.

2. Divine Role We explored God’s role in the historical pattern of revelation in §82.3. To review, in this pattern, God produces the meaningful forms for revelation through his providential rule and involvement with his chosen people. The “history” of the historical pattern, then, is not general human history, but history related to salvation. In that history, God sometimes operates openly, but more often stealthily. So when they received the meaningful forms in the historical pattern, the writers of Scripture did not usually have a sense of

HOME PAGE 372

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

supernatural, divine intervention. They could have received the sources directly or indirectly; that is, they may have been directly present when the events occurred, or received the information later from eyewitnesses’oral or written accounts. Importantly, in the historical pattern God communicates His thoughts not through words, but through human deeds. The activities of His people reveal His involvement with the community He created. But why would God choose the historical pattern of revelation over the prophetic, verbal, or theophanic patterns of revelation? Are not words much more specific than deeds in telling us about God? While there are no texts that answer this question directly, we might fairly answer that God reveals Himself in the deeds of His people because those acts are the referent to the words He generated through the other patterns. History is the story of life, and revelation is about life. Christ explained that He came to give us life, and for that reason gave up His life for us (John 10:10-11). Moreover, when Christ speaks of giving us abundant life, He is not only referring to the resurrection, but to our lives here and now (John 8:12; 17:3). But these are only words, expressed by Christ in the theophanic pattern inherent to His incarnation. In other words, they were only ideas. To clarify what He meant by abundant living, He had to perform acts in people’s lives. God could choose to reveal what kinds of deeds should and should not proceed from the spiritual life through visions and dreams, or infuse the ideas into the prophets’minds. If He so chose, He could dictate a historical account of the facts. Yet, such methods would be completely disconnected from the lives God most intends to affect; they would occur apart from the very reality they are intended to relate. The historicity of the Christian religion had to be revealed through the historical pattern of revelation. Not by chance, Luke emphasized the actual historical events and the certainty of the witnesses’reports. To put it simply, because of the human methodology inherent to the historical pattern, we know for a fact Jesus was not an invention, but a real human being that lived and died in Palestine two thousand years ago. Because God also reveals Himself

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

373

in historical events, we know that when He speaks about life, He has in mind our present life as well as its eternal extension into the future. God also used the historical pattern because His plan of salvation itself unfolded over history. The central event of that history was Christ’s death for us. Christ’s death is the foundational mark carved directly by God into human history, but it belongs to a much broader process called the history of salvation. The history of salvation is that of God’s dealings with His people, the “covenantal community.” This history, limited to certain groups of people in certain times and geographical areas, reveals the operation of God’s salvific plan in the life of those people. From that process God works out salvation for the entire human race. He could reveal the theoretical aspects of salvation through the theophanic and prophetic patterns, but not the process through which it becomes reality. For instance, at Sinai, God revealed in some detail the overall structure of the plan. The plan would become real through a series of divine activities within the history of God’s people. For instance, divine foreknowledge about Christ’s victory at the cross were prefigured by the sacrificial system; those ceremonies found their reality in the historical event of Jesus death in space and time, not vice versa. Because they describe events rather than theory, the Gospels by nature tell us much more about salvation than Leviticus does. God is revealed in the history of salvation; this requires the historical pattern of revelation to preserve it for all generations. Finally, as alluded to above (§97.1.f), God uses the historical pattern of revelation to uncover how He thinks, feels, and deals with recurrent patterns of human behavior. As we noted, Paul tells us that “these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction” (1Corinthians 10:11, NAB). History reveals “types”of divine activity that God repeats throughout the process of salvation. Thus, the historical pattern of revelation is also written to tell us how to apply what God tells us.

3. Human Role The role of the prophet in the historical pattern is more sensitive and involved because God’s activity does not always generate words like it does in the

HOME PAGE 374

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

previous patterns we have examined. Historical events have words associated with them, of course, but generally they belong to a person involved in the events, not to God. (The one exception, in the Gospels, is Jesus Christ, God Himself speaking in history.) So for the historical pattern to work, God had to call biblical writers to identify, select, interpret, and articulate the revelatory meaning of otherwise normal (and sometimes miraculous) historical events. As in the other patterns, the historical one presupposes a historical view of the prophet’s human nature and mental capacities. (see §70, §71, §72.3-4, §88.2; §90-91). Once again, what fitted biblical writers for their task was not divine miracle, but correct presuppositions based on previous revelation, conversion, and sanctification. Because this pattern requires a higher level of human involvement, it increases the margin of error not only in the gathering of facts, but especially in their interpretation— in understanding the meaningful forms. We will deal with the question of errors in Scripture in Chapter 20, after we examine first the inspiration of Scripture, and the hermeneutical effect of the historicalcognitive model of revelation-inspiration. For now, when we consider the reliability of those parts of Scripture created by the historical pattern, we must keep in mind its three objectives. How did the Bible writers accomplish their theological (§97.2), historical (§97.1.f ), and educational (§97.1.f) objectives? These questions must come before that of historical reliability. Critics often find errors in Scripture because they expect it to be what it was never intended. The Bible is not a book of history, even if it contains historical information. Consequently, we cannot assess its reliability as if it were a document written by a modern historian. Whether the Bible is reliable depends on historical verification and practical theological understanding. We will come back to this important issue in our last chapter. To summarize the historical pattern of revelation, God shows Himself by operating in history, both openly and stealthily, and the events are recorded and interpreted by witnesses and writers of Scripture. This pattern is particularly indispensable for revealing the personal history of Jesus Christ— God’s highest revelation. The historical pattern also reveals to us the

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

375

process through which God causes our salvation in space and time. Finally, through this pattern we discover how God deals with similar situations throughout the changes in everyday life caused by the flow of history. The historical pattern we have just outlined may seem very complicated. Many believers prefer to hold a single pattern of explanation for the entire Bible. They assume divine things are simple. The problem with simplicity, however, is that it does not correspond to the facts. The facts are complex because life is complex. This brings us to the existential pattern of revelation.

§98. EXISTENTIAL PATTERN The existential pattern of revelation is something of a specialized section of the historical pattern (§82.3.c). The difference between the two occurs at the level of history through which God produces his meaningful forms. In the historical pattern of revelation, the forms come out of events experienced by a person or persons other than those who wrote them down. In the existential pattern of revelation, the forms are generated providentially from events of the writer’s own experience. In other words, historical revelation is third person— occurring to others— while the existential pattern is first person: it happens to the prophet. Here, we encounter revelation in what we usually catalogue as “personal experiences.” Compared to the historical pattern, only a few portions of Scripture come from the existential pattern. Yet, those small portions play a very important role. They reveal what happens when God operates in the inner life of a human being— in their personal relationship with Him. In a few words, the existential pattern uncovers the private reflections of human hearts on events happening to them within the context of the divine covenant. We have already explored an example of the existential pattern when we looked at David’s repentance in Psalm 51 (§82.3.d). Here we will explore the existential pattern of revelation by distinguishing it from the historical pattern.

1. Biblical Description

HOME PAGE 376

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

While the Song of Songs and many Psalms are derived from it, the best descriptions of this pattern occur in the books of Job and Lamentations. Both depend on private experiences; in Job, those experiences are of personal events, while in Lamentations, they are of events that happened to the entire community. a. Private Experiences As is to be expected, writings based on life experiences do not usually include theoretical definitions of their structure. Nevertheless, we find occasional pointers to the existence and shape of that structure. As in much of the poetic passages of Scripture, the book of Job expresses meanings emerging from Job’s private experience with God. His suffering was not its own personal affair, but seemed to be directly caused by God: “He tears me down on every side till I am gone; he uproots my hope like a tree. His anger burns against me” (Job 19:10-11, NIV). Job did not have any idea why he was being put through such a terrible ordeal, but he decided to speak up: “I will not keep silent; I will speak out in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain in the bitterness of my soul” (Job 7:11, NIV). Although Job was the primary witness of his life experience, he was not the author of the biblical book reporting his experience: “Oh, that my words were recorded, that they were written on a scroll, that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead, or engraved in rock forever!” (Job 19:2324, NIV). As in the case of the Gospels, the writer of Job used the testimony of witnesses to historical events— in this case, personal events of suffering. b. Community Experiences In the existential pattern, the book of Lamentations expresses meanings springing from the experience of the community of God’s people. Jeremiah presents himself differently than he does in the book of prophecies that bears his name. That one begins with a clear description of the prophetic pattern (Jeremiah 1:1-10). In the book of Lamentations, however, he describes himself as “the man who has seen affliction by the rod of his wrath”

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

377

(Lamentations 3:1, NIV). There we find a relationship between God and the writer, just as we do in all patterns of revelation. But here, God’s activity is not described as “word,” or information, but as “the rod of his wrath”— the experience of divine punishment, in this case. Jeremiah writes that the object of God’s wrath was the covenantal community: “You have made us scum and refuse among the nations. All our enemies have opened their mouths wide against us. We have suffered terror and pitfalls, ruin and destruction. Streams of tears flow from my eyes because my people are destroyed” (3:45- 48, NIV). The affliction to which the book refers consisted of a series of real historical events, specifically the Babylonian captivity of Judah (586 B.C.). The book of Lamentations describes the aftermath of events prophesied over a century before (Micah 3:9-12), so it contains information from those events. But just as in the case of Job, it is a theological reflection on the calamity. The events caused by God’s wrath led to theological reflection based on the presuppositions of prior revelations— in Jeremiah’s case, not just earlier written and oral sources, but personally received communication from God.

2. Divine Role As in the historical pattern, the existential pattern flows from God’s providential involvement with human lives on a personal and social level. In this pattern, God does not generate words, symbols, or representations as the means of communicating ideas, but reveals himself through experiences at those two levels. This pattern, then, is based on the writers’subjective reactions to historical events ordered by God’s providence in the history of salvation. In other words, the meaningful forms, the sources of revelation, are the writers’ responses to what has happened to them or to their communities. History cannot be repeated or relived, and yet if God reveals Himself in it, it must be recorded. One way to do this is to write a narrative, in the historical pattern. Another is to consider the effects of events on individual lives— the existential pattern. The historical pattern views events from the perspective of

HOME PAGE 378

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

God’s master plan of salvation; the existential pattern looks at the impact of that plan from the perspective of the individual believer. God intended revelation to be a vehicle for the transformation of human hearts and lives. Because the existential pattern reveals how salvation works on an individual level, it is an irreplaceable pattern for understanding the meaning of events in people’s individual lives individually and communally.

3. Human Role The prophet’s role in the existential pattern is larger than in any of the patterns we have explored thus far; after all, the Bible writer describes his or her own life experiences to reveal truth. These portions of Scripture are not descriptions of God’s commands or ideas, but of human response to God’s involvement in their lives and community. Prophets receiving revelation in the existential pattern are interpreting these experiences from their understanding of the covenant and of previous revelations (§84.4,6). As we have mentioned, their presuppositions consist of knowledge together with the transformation of justification and sanctification. The content of existential revelation depends on the prior content of these presuppositions; the presuppositions determine how the writer interprets his or her personal experiences. As the prophets reflected on their experiences and put them into words, those experiences became connected to other aspects of their personal lives, experiences of the community past and present, and hope flowing from divine promises. In short, the existential model integrates the divine teachings of other passages with everyday life; the theory and the practice come together. Of course, Scripture cannot possibly cover all types of experiences, but those included in the Bible are enough to give us a clear view of what a personal relationship with God involves.

§99. WISDOM PATTERN In the Old Testament, the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are derived from an entirely different pattern of revelation. Since these books deal with wisdom, we

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

379

will call it the wisdom pattern. (While portions of the Psalms and some of the teachings of Christ could be considered wisdom literature, not all of that genre was produced by the wisdom pattern. Clearly, Christ’s teachings originate from a different pattern of revelation; see §97.)

1. Biblical Description The opening verse of Ecclesiastes tells us that the book contains “the words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem” (NIV). A few verses later, we find a brief description of how the book came to be. I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven. It is a grievous task which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with. I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind” (1:13-14, NAB, emphasis in the original).

As in the historical and existential patterns, the wisdom pattern of revelation depends on no supernatural communication of knowledge nor a divine command to investigate or write on a subject. The writer produces not only the words of the text, but also the research of which the book’s content consists.

2. Divine Role At first, God seems totally absent. But as we look at the contents of the books in question, we find the wisdom model operating similarly to the historical model. The difference is that the writer in the wisdom pattern considers not sacred only but universal history. He has reflected on “all that has been done under heaven” (Ecclesiastes 1:13). Proverbs, on the other hand, aims at “obtaining wisdom and discipline” (1:2, 7), not as ends in themselves but as a means to “understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God” (Proverbs 2:5). If knowing God means eternal life, as Jesus says in John 17:3, then wisdom literature is intended not only “to transmit the lessons of experience, so that one may learn to cope with life,”2 but also to obtain salvation. As the wisdom writers contemplated daily events, they saw God revealed there

HOME PAGE 380

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

because everything happened within the limits set up by His creative design. The meaning and meaninglessness of life are directly connected to God’s blueprint for human life. The person biblical wisdom calls “the fool”is the person who departs from the divine design for one of his own making; in reflecting on events in the lives of the wise and unwise, the wisdom writers conclude that mankind’s purpose is to “fear God and keep his commandments” (Ecclesiastes 12:13, NIV).

3. Human Role As in the historical pattern, the writer takes the initiative to do research. But in so doing the author is only performing his duty as a human being: the Godgiven task of exploring all that has been done under heaven (Ecclesiastes 1:13). All must become wise by reflecting on life. But the writer engages in more than just researching life; he experiences it as well. His hermeneutical presuppositions are based on wisdom (Ecclesiastes 1:13), not only intellectual capabilities of judgment, but also a perspective from which such judgments are formed. God granted the abilities to Solomon on his special request (2 Chronicles 1:11-12); the perspective was based on the king’s conscious adoption of the law revealed earlier through verbal, theophanic, and prophetic patterns of revelation (Deuteronomy 4:5-6). We might argue that wisdom literature arises from interpreting everyday life from the general principles of the Law. (Here we use “law”in the broad sense of the divine teaching by which the covenantal community came into existence.) In other words, the wisdom pattern of revelation comes from the faithful application of previous, more direct revelation to everyday life.

§100. REVELATION Beginning with the biblical assertion that “in the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways” (Hebrews 1:1-2, NIV), we have identified some of the various patterns in which God revealed himself to humanity: the theophanic, verbal, prophetic, historical, existential, and wisdom patterns. Each presents a different method

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

381

by which God’s thoughts, teachings, and actions became incarnate in human thought and writing. Our exploration has been brief and broad; a detailed analysis of each model might require several volumes.

1. The Complexity of Biblical Revelation The picture that arises from our analysis of the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture is complex, an unpleasant reality for most believers who prefer simplicity. While the classical, evangelical, and modern models are not simple, each approaches the origin of Scripture with one overarching explanation. As we have seen, this is inadequate for a series of documents as complex and varied as those that comprise the Bible. The complexity generated by so many patterns is compounded when we read Scripture verse by verse asking what pattern we’re looking at in a given book. I confess I have not done that completely with any book of the Bible. Yet, many portions of books I have analyzed were apparently derived from more than one pattern; one in particular might have been the basis for a passage, but other patterns were woven in.

2. All Scripture is Revealed. The multiplicity of revelatory patterns enable us to say freely that divine revelation extends to the whole text of the Bible. God was involved in creating the meanings throughout Scripture in several ways. First, he generated the sources of revelation, the meaningful forms of communication. To reveal different ideas and teachings to vastly divergent audiences, he selected the best means for each point of revelation. Because what was best changed from situation to situation, we find today divergent patterns of divine revelation in the Bible.

3. Forming the Writers Through his providential intervention God also shaped those who would receive His messages. Each pattern required a different level of prophetic involvement— some less (verbal, theophanic, prophetic), some more (historical,

HOME PAGE 382

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

existential, wisdom). Regardless of how much each human writer was called upon to contribute, to understand their revelations, the prophets needed to interpret them, and to interpret God’s message without distortion, He had to be the one to shape their presuppositions. He did this in two ways: by shaping their presuppositions, and by inspiring them (Chapter 18). Here we will look at God’s involvement in the preparation of the biblical writers. Although Scripture does not preserve the names of all the biblical writers, it records enough to demonstrate that God chose His representatives carefully. In the Old Testament, God chose prophets such as Moses (Exodus 3:1-4:17), Elisha (1 Kings 19:19, 20; see also 2 Kings 2:13, 14), Isaiah (6:8, 9), Jeremiah (1:5), Ezekiel (2:3–5), and Amos (7:15). In the New Testament Jesus called the apostles (Matthew 4:18–20; Mark 1:16–18; Luke 6:14; John 1:35–42; Matthew 4:21, 22; Mark 1:19, 20; Luke 6:14; John 1:43, 44; John 1:45–51; Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27, 28). But God did more than just call prophets and apostles; he enabled them for their appointed tasks. Unlike the classical and evangelical models, in which God supernaturally elevated the writers’mental capacities, the historical-cognitive model posits that biblical writers had the same nature and rational powers common to all human beings (James 5:17). Consequently, the enabling was the transformation of the contents of their minds, beginning with conversion and continuing throughout each prophet’s walk with God. God accomplished this by operating behind the scenes of each one’s everyday life experiences. Through divine providence, God guided the learning experience of His representatives. The presuppositions they gained over time enabled them to comprehend the meaningful forms He would give them. In this way, God secured instruments that would not distort His intent with their own interpretations (2 Peter 1:20-21). This process of preparing the biblical writers’ presuppositions is illustrated by Christ’s ministry for His disciples. Through a process of consistent teaching and living, the Master formed the framework of understanding for those who would be witnesses of His life and writers of the Gospels.

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

383

4. Writers, Scholars, or Thinkers? Our brief analysis here of the various revelatory patterns suggests that the biblical writers were also thinkers. This fact becomes central in the historicalcognitive model of revelation. In the evangelical and classical models, the biblical writers wrote only; they selected the right words, style and structure, but that was all. The modern model views the biblical writers as artists who put spiritual ideas into written form. They depended, then, on their imaginations. In both cases, the Bible writers were only writers, to the exclusion of more than the most basic thinking; their contributions were at the level of words only, not of content. This view creates conflict in the minds of some conservative Christians. They watch as the modern model provides for the historical-critical method of biblical exegesis, applying current scientific methodology to the study of biblical history. Since modern presuppositions do not allow for God to move in human history, history could not have taken place in the way Scripture presents it; Scripture is only loosely based on historical fact. For example, Israel was taken by Babylon into captivity. But this did not happen because of a framework of salvation history outlined by God; those things existed only in the imagination of biblical writersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; mere spiritual artists. As a reaction to this attack on the historical reliability of Scripture, conservative Christians came to understand biblical writers more or less as scholars, who provided completely accurate historiographical information. According to their model of inspiration, God Himself is a scholar uncovering accurate history in the pages of the Bible. In contrast, the historical-cognitive model finds the biblical writers to be primarily thinkers, even though some were also scholars (Luke 1:1-3), some poets (the Psalms and many of the Prophets), and all of them writers. Their main contribution, however, was in thinking. To conceive of them as thinkers and scholars means they were concerned with the accurate transmission of historical facts, but even more with the meaning of history and life as it took place within the community of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s people. In other words, they contributed to the content as well. Thinkers may be compared to philosophers; they both search for meaning. For them, historical data are important references to actual life in space and

HOME PAGE 384

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

time. However, Bible thinkers differ from Greek philosophers in at least three major ways. First, they ponder human and divine life rather than the abstract nature of reality. Second, they assume that human and divine life takes place in space and time rather than in timelessness. Finally, they interpret human and divine life through supernatural, divine communications, while the Greek philosophers dreamed up their interpretations of reality. Whether we presuppose that the human role in creating Scripture was in writing, scholarship, or thinking will play an important role when we examine the reliability of Scripture in the final chapter.

§101. REVIEW • Defining “pattern.” A pattern is a clearly coherent system based on an intended interrelationship of its parts. In other words, it is a specific arrangement of parts and procedures— and it can be repeated, as with a model or mold. • Patterns of revelation. Patterns of revelation are configurations taken on by the revelation of God’s ideas and actions. Each pattern is a distinct system of relationships between what God reveals and how His writers receive and interpret it. • Multiplicity of patterns. In His divine wisdom, God saw best to communicate with sinful human beings by incarnating His cognitive word in several different patterns. • Reasons for differing patterns.

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

385

God chose various patterns for different times and messages for the benefit of His audiences; some would understand communication through certain patterns better than through others. • Incarnation of the cognitive word of God: hermeneutical. Each pattern of revelation is a different version of the structure of incarnation described briefly in §87. God’s thoughts and information were incarnated as biblical writers received the sources He gave them. Prophets interpreted the sources of revelation based on their presuppositions. • The structure of all revelatory patterns: hermeneutical. All revelatory patterns take place in a process of interpretation. God and the prophet enter into a cognitive relationship. God initiates and directs that relationship, creating and using various sources of revelation, that the prophet receives. We should not think of either God or the prophet as passive in this process. God produces the meaningful forms, but does not automatically accept whatever way His chosen messenger receives and interprets them. Instead, He teaches the messenger so he can understand. On the other side, the messenger does not simply accept what God says, even when he knows he is directly in the presence of God. He converses with God (in the case of direct revelation) or reflects on the message (in the case of indirect revelation). Through the process of dialogue or reflection, truth is incarnated. Prophetic freedom is at the essence of this process. • Theophanic pattern. In the theophanic pattern, God condescends to make Himself present in space and time, there revealing directly His thoughts, teachings, and will through human language and visible representations; He is permitted by His temporal/historical nature to do so. In this pattern, prophetic interpretation and contribution are at a minimum. • Verbal pattern. In the verbal pattern of revelation, God actually writes the words. He is

HOME PAGE 386

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

in full control; the human factor consists only of the level of language and knowledge God uses. While the human element is fully present, there is no prophetic intervention, and human contribution is kept to its minimum possible level. The biblical writer contributes nothing to the content of revelation. • Prophetic pattern. In the prophetic pattern, God produces predominantly visual means of revelation openly, miraculously, and directly. The human beings are able to understand these forms only in a limited fashion. Their role includes knowledge and language, the selection of words and analogies, self-awareness, knowledge of previous revelation, and theological reflections. • Interpretation and presuppositions. In comparison with the verbal, theophanic, and prophetic patterns, the contributions of biblical writers increases greatly in the historical, existential, and wisdom patterns— because they are required to perform much more interpretation. These interpretations depend on their presuppositions and prior understandings. The writers of Scripture were not permitted to interpret the historical phenomena from their own imaginations or cultural views (2 Peter 1:20-21), but from their previous understanding and acceptance of divine revelation (Isaiah 8:20). Because of these prior contents of their minds, they could understand God’s revelation in his gradually unfolding work of salvation from within the historical process itself. • Historical pattern. In this pattern, God’s sources of revelation are not words or representations, but events in human history, specifically in the community of His people. His activity in this pattern consists primarily of providential intervention in history (stealth-nonmiraculous-direct activity). Occasionally, miraculous interventions (open-miraculous-direct) are included. The prophets may have been directly present when the event occurred, or they may have received information about the event indirectly from eyewitnesses’ oral or written

HOME PAGE PATTERNS OF REVELATION

387

testimonies. The role and contribution of the biblical writer significatively increase in the historical pattern; they must write, search, evaluate, and interpret the meaningful forms found in historical events. • Existential pattern. In this pattern, God reveals himself through the biblical writer's personal and communal experiences. This pattern introduces the subjective reaction to the historical events of God’s providential process of salvation. The meaningful forms or sources of revelation are made up of the prophets’ subjective reactions to what has happened, under God’s control, in their personal or communal lives. Again, they interpreted their experiences based on presuppositions shaped by previous revelation. • Wisdom pattern. As with the existential pattern, the wisdom pattern is a modification of the historical pattern. The meaningful forms come from everyday life, even that outside the community of faith. According to the wisdom pattern, only by considering and reflecting on everyday life can one come to understand God’s will for human beings. The role and contribution of the prophet are greater in this pattern than in all the others, because they engage in a philosophical evaluation of life, once again from the perspective of previous, supernatural revelations. • Complexity of revelation: the whole Bible is revealed. God did not use one single pattern to reveal everything we find in Scripture, so a simple explanation of the origin of Scripture is impossible. However complex God’s ways of revealing Himself are, we must try to understand them if we are to approach understanding Him. Moreover, if the whole Bible is revealed and not merely inspired, these patterns are necessary to explain its contents. • Interweaving of patterns.

HOME PAGE 388

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Although most books in Scripture are based on one pattern of revelation, most of them interweave one or more secondary patterns as well. • Divine formation of biblical writers. God had to shape a prophet’s presuppositions for that person to be able to interpret what He would reveal. How each prophet thought, experienced, and interpreted reality as a whole had to be carefully shaped. To this end, God called and transformed His representatives into His own image. • Biblical writers as thinkers. The historical-cognitive model regards biblical writers primarily as thinkers, though some were also scholars (Luke 1:1-3) and all were writers. Their main contribution, however, was thinking. This means they were primarily concerned with the meaning of history as experienced by the community of God’s people. They were not writing mere literature or history, but divine truth about life.

ENDNOTES 1

Daniel tells us that God sent the hand. Thus, it is probable that not God Himself but an angel wrote it. But because God bypassed prophetic reception and writing, we can take this event as an example of divine writing. 2

Paul J. Achtemeier, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), s.v. wisdom.

HOME PAGE

18. INSPIRATION

Revelation and inspiration are the two halves of the process that produced Scripture. Thus far, we have considered only revelation: how the biblical content entered the minds of prophets and apostles. By itself revelation is useless. To bear fruit, revelation requires oral or written expressionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; inspiration. When prophets and apostles communicated what had been revealed to their audiences, God assisted them. Both God and man contributed not just to revelation but to inspiration. So how did the process of writing take place? What part did the human agent play? In what ways did God intervene? To understand inspiration, we will look at all the evidence presented by the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture. We will begin by reviewing the biblical description of inspiration and the hermeneutical presuppositions of the historical-cognitive model. Then, we will consider why divine inspiration is necessary, and the human and divine contributions to inspiration. We will take a brief excursion to consider the relationship between thoughts and words. Finally, we will conclude by highlighting the complex interface between the various patterns of revelation and inspiration in the generation of Scripture.

HOME PAGE

§102. BIBLICAL DESCRIPTION Inspiration is the process through which human writers, under the supervision and assistance of the Holy Spirit, brought what God had revealed to them into written form. This divine-human work is as essential to the incarnation of divine thoughts in the Bible as is revelation. We discussed the biblical claim for inspiration in detail in Chapter 4. There we found that Peter and Paul complemented each other in their descriptions of the process of revelation-inspiration. According to them, divine inspiration operates within the humans who wrote. As we have since explored, revelation operated on the human agent’s knowledge and experience. But the writing of Scripture was not merely human work; somehow, God operated in the minds of the biblical writers helping to bridge between what he had revealed and what they wrote— between revelation and inspiration. The Holy Spirit worked through the human agency, thereby influencing the written outcome. In this chapter, we will attempt to discover how that happened— how divine inspiration (qeo,pneu stoj) reached the words of Scripture (grafh. ) as described in 2 Timothy 3:16.

§103. HERMENEUTICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS Our understanding of inspiration builds on the same presuppositions we used to understand revelation— namely, that the biblical God is able to move directly in human history; that human nature is ultimately historical, not timeless; and that revelation and inspiration both occur within the historical experience of those to whom God revealed the Bible (§65-71). Due to God’s historical nature, we assume that just as revelation does not violate the minds of the prophets by taking them to timeless places, inspiration does not normally overrule human freedom or its normal rational and linguistic processes.

HOME PAGE 392

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

§104. THE NEED OF INSPIRATION Why should the historical-cognitive model add inspiration to revelation as a second divine activity? Isn’t revelation enough to explain the origin of Scripture? If revelation were the end of the process, we would be forced to question the reliability of Scripture. Does it accurately describe divine thoughts, will, and teachings? Unless the answer is yes, we have no reason to trust the Bible’s reliability. The absence of inspiration would undermine Scripture’s reliability because the human authors’freedom could lead them to introduce their own interpretations as they wrote down what they received from God in revelation. Let us consider this point furhter.

1. The Stealth Pattern of Revelation Following Scripture, the historical-cognitive model recognizes that God did not always produce revelation through obviously miraculous interventions. As we argued in Chapter 17, the historical, existential, and wisdom patterns of revelation came about naturally rather than supernaturally (§97-99). If these patterns were merely natural, it calls into question the reliability of Scripture. In other words, if divine revelation can take place without the miraculous intervention of God, how can we differentiate between supernatural revelation and the work of the Holy Spirit when pastors preach? From time to time, many believers claim to have direct supernatural messages from God— so it is crucial that we understand how the Holy Spirit uniquely assisted the Bible writers.

2. Freedom of the Human Writers Even when revelation came to the prophets in obviously supernatural ways (the theophanic, verbal and prophetic patterns, §94-96), the question about the reliability of the written account still stands. After all, humans are finite, sinful and prone to error. If the writing of Scripture was left to them, how could we trust it? These two points— stealth revelation and human freedom— demonstrate the need for inspiration on top of revelation.

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

393

3. Divine Accommodation to Human Thought and Language God must be involved in the writing of Scripture, or we are left to question whether it properly represents His thoughts. To correctly interpret and articulate revelation, prophets and apostles needed inspiration. God’s continuous involvement grounds the reliability of biblical thinking, for just as He involved Himself in every pattern of revelation, He guided the expression of His thoughts into human language.

§105. THE LOCUS OF INSPIRATION According to the teachings and phenomena of Scripture, inspiration happens within the mind of the human writers. We say that they were the locus of inspiration, meaning they were the reality where divine inspiration took place. This happened in two senses. First, they were the “place” where God’s action of inspiration operated. Second, their minds were the agencies behind the actual writing of Scripture. In this we find another difference between the historical-cognitive model and the classical, modern, and evangelical views of inspiration, once again based on the hermeneutical presuppositions operative in each tradition. Note this carefully. The classical and evangelical views of inspiration make the text the locus of inspiration. They bypass the human agency because they assume God acts according to the Augustinian-Calvinistic notion of divine, sovereign providence. In contrast, the modern view denies divine intervention in the writing of Scripture altogether. Using the results of historical criticism to define the nature of Scripture and its formation, Paul Achtemeier has recently argued that the locus of inspiration is the community of faith. Instead of viewing divine inspiration as acting on the cognitive power of the biblical writers, this view suggests the Holy Spirit leads the process of tradition history by acting on the community of faith in biblical and pre-biblical times.1 Since the historical-critical method assumes that revelation had no cognitive content, to say that God only inspired the process of writing or assembling

HOME PAGE 394

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Scripture means only that God’s people gathered a group of human documents to serve as their authority. In other words, to them inspiration means only that the Bible was given authority by and for the community of faith. But those writings do not contain the words of God, nor are they trustworthy representations of His thoughts. The Bible, however, never says that God inspired the community to write it. Since by definition, inspiration is the linguistic process through which divine, cognitive revelation was recorded in Scripture, to say that the entire community was inspired completely misses the essence of that process. The teaching (see §104) and phenomena of Scripture instead point to the human writer as the locus of inspiration. This refers to the process through which the content in the mind of the prophet became words, sentences, and books. Since the description of God’s revealed ideas began in the mind, God’s contributions to that process also took place there.

§106. HUMAN CONTRIBUTIONS 1. Linguistic Mode Prophets and apostles wrote as any other human might write. Scripture was recorded in human language and shares all its characteristics and limitations. The writing process is the last step in the incarnation of God’s thoughts. In other words, God’s infinite temporality allowed Him to incarnate His thoughts by accommodating himself to the finite temporal-historical level of human reality, and communicating in thoughts comprehensible to the writers; He finished the process by guiding the record of those thoughts in human language. In other words, despite its limitations and finitude, human writing is qualified to communicate divine thought clearly and reliably. Actually, there is no other way in which God could communicate with us. Were God to speak at His own level, we would not be able to understand a word.

2. Book Composition

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

395

Contrary to what proponents of verbal inspiration would have us believe, human writers are responsible for the literary composition of the biblical books. On numerous occasions, God simply commanded his servants to write what had already been revealed to them. For example, God commanded Moses to record historical events in a book (Exodus 17:14) and Jeremiah and John, to record prophecy (Jeremiah 30:2; Revelation 1:11). Even though God commanded them to write, he did not seem to say how it should be organized, apparently leaving this to the human agent. The evidence present in the phenomena of Scripture gives ample support to this idea. Charged with the task of communicating Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thoughts, human writers designed and organized the composition of the books, applying their literary talents to present the message in a manner appropriate to their audiences.

3. The Words As we have explored, God communicated with the prophets, and the prophets with their audiences. These two interchanges were not identical. The difference lies in the means of communication. God often communicated to prophets and apostles by means unavailable to them directly, for example visions and divine appearances, and by more natural means such as historical events. Prophets communicated only through words. Of course, when God spoke directly from within theophanies and some visions, the prophets attempted to record His exact words, or those of angels He sent. But when God revealed truth visually, He provided the necessary pictures to depict His message; the prophets were left to decide how these would be communicated, including the selection of words. In the historical, existential, and wisdom patterns, prophets even chose which truths they would write about. With all this in mind, an example may help us to see how God placed the task of writing Scripture on His human messengers.

4. Moses and Aaron The relationship between God and his human writers may be compared to the

HOME PAGE 396

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

relationship between Moses and Aaron as described in Exodus 4:10-16. According to this passage, Moses felt he was not eloquent, literally “not a man of words” (4:10), even though he knew his task required the use of words. God assured him that he would be with Moses’ mouth (4:12). Whatever that meant, Moses did not believe God would miraculously override his speech problems or he would not have remained afraid. So God revealed that Aaron, Moses’ brother, was on his way to serve as Moses’ voice because he could “speak well” (4:14). Moses was not relieved of his mission; he would still have to speak, albeit through his brother. Then, God explained his plan by using an analogy we will use to help us understand the relationship between God and humans in revelationinspiration: “You [God said to Moses] are to speak to him and put the words in his mouth [Aaron’s]; and I, even I, will be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach you what you are to do. Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as God to him” (Exodus 4:15-16). The Moses-Aaron team worked like the God-prophet team. Moses’ act of “putting the words” into Aaron’s mouth represents God’s role; Aaron speaking for Moses to the people represents the role of the prophet. If the expression “putting the words in the mouth” is taken literally to mean a miraculous overriding of a person’s speech, the passage makes no sense. God would have to repeat the same action twice. More likely, this passage indicates that God communicated truth to the biblical writers (revelation), while biblical writers used their mental and linguistic capacities to communicate the truths to their audiences. Communication was the task of the prophet, even though the content came from God. Putting words in another’s mouth meant that the recipient became a representative of the words of another. Though subservient, he had freedom in serving as God’s representative. He or she had, so to speak, power of attorney. Repeating the words verbatim makes no sense. Aaron had strong verbal skills and was called to use his gift to represent Moses’thoughts. In the same way, prophets and apostles, as God’s representatives, were to communicate His thoughts according the their understanding and manner of

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

397

expression. Couldn’t an omnipotent, omniscient God have written Scripture without the contribution of the biblical writers? Yes— but had God done that, it might sound very strange to us. Imagine God writing psalms about personal experiences or, for instance, the Song of Songs! Since God wanted to reveal things concerning our lives, He engaged the contribution of human representatives. In choosing representatives to speak for Him, God followed the best available method for communicating His salvific purposes to us. The words of the prophets, then, did not express their views but God’s. The words of man became the words of God, not because He formed them miraculously inside their mouths or in their hands as they wrote, but because they represented His thoughts faithfully and reliably. In Scripture, we do not find an abstract account of divine truth, but rather God’s communication in human words.

5. Literary Forms The task of communication involves more than constructing sentences, paragraphs and books. One must consider literary forms and styles. In Scripture, we find a wide variety of such forms or genres— codes of law, legal contracts, covenants, riddles, royal decrees, psalms, prayers, parables, figures, and apocalypses.2 Where do biblical literary styles come from? Does God produce them miraculously, as suggested by verbal inspiration? Are they determined by the thought patterns of the socioeconomic group from which Scripture came, as certain schools of criticism suggest?3 According to the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration, the answer is no. Several factors contributed to variety of forms, such as the meaningful forms God used, which pattern of revelation was involved, the nature of the issues to be communicated, the purpose of the message, the audience, and the literary bent of the biblical writers. As we have discussed, prophets and apostles received truth through different patterns, and got different kinds of truth about different aspects of reality— all revolving around God’s plan of salvation Such diversity all but demands different

HOME PAGE 398

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

literary forms. After all, communication of a personal experience cannot be presented as law, prophecy cannot become royal decree, praise to God cannot be in the form of riddles, and history cannot be depicted as apocalyptic prophecy. What they intended to convey also influenced which forms they chose to write in. For instance, calling people to action required different forms and structures than would persuasion or assurance. Biblical writers chose the most suitable literary forms for their purposes, circumstances, and audiences. On one hand, biblical writers seem to have complete freedom in that choice. On the other, divine revelation almost always limited the forms from which they could choose. Again, we see divine revelation limited by the process of incarnation. The communication, not its contents, is limited by the literary capabilities of each writer.4 On the positive side, each biblical writer contributed his own personal perspective and literary style to the incarnation of truth on behalf of his fellow believers.

6. Editing Work At times, biblical writers rewrote what they had already put down. This suggests that prophets and apostles edited their works. Let us consider a biblical example. Jeremiah received the word of the Lord over a period of twenty-three years. He faithfully preached aloud God’s messages to His people, but they did not listen (Jeremiah 25:1-5). So God asked Jeremiah to "take a scroll and write on it all the words which I have spoken to you concerning Israel and concerning Judah, and concerning all the nations, from the day I first spoke to you, from the days of Josiah, even to this day” (36:2). Jeremiah dictated the words to Baruch, who wrote them in a scroll (36:4). Unfortunately, the book was not appreciated by King Jehoiakim, who cut it up as it was read to him and burned it (36:23). God then commanded Jeremiah to “take again another scroll and write on it all the former words that were on the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah burned” (36:28). So Jeremiah dictated another scroll to Baruch (36:32). We cannot make a general principle from one set of events. But this

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

399

episode reveals some interesting things about the process of writing Scripture. We can see how revelation preceded its oral and written communications, in this case through the prophetic pattern. The text suggests that Jeremiah had memorized these messages from God. Since the only copy of the first edition had been lost, the second edition also had to be based on Jeremiah’s memory. Human memory is not perfect, so we might conclude that the second edition was not a verbatim copy of the first. Moreover, we are told that some things were added, so the book was expanded as well as revised. The same material, then, can be written in several ways, all of them reliable and satisfactory to God. In fact, the same topic could be more thoroughly covered with additional meaningful forms from God, or a deeper understanding of previous forms by the prophet. A second writing occurs at a different moment in the life of the prophet and, therefore, allows for a better understanding of past revelations and their intended purpose. Such intellectual development and editorial work should be taken as a normal processes in the writing of Scripture. Only the assumption that God operated by overruling the natural functioning of human cognitive and linguistic activities forces the conclusion that prophets wrote a perfect copy on the first try.

7. Literary Sources We have already considered the role of sources at the level of revelation (§82-§83). Here we will look at them at the level of inspiration— the writing. The distinction between indirect, written sources of revelation and literary sources is that the former provides means by which God communicates His ideas; it also shapes a writer’s interpretations. The second merely provides fitting words for expressing what God has revealed through other means. Written sources of revelation provide content and interpretive patterns. Literary sources do not express God’s thoughts, but a writer may refer to religious or secular writings of his day in an attempt to express God’s thoughts. Let me explain further with two examples: one from personal experience, the other from the Bible itself. First, pastors love to use illustrations in their sermons.

HOME PAGE 400

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

At times, they use quotations from famous people to connect with their audience, especially if the congregation is well-educated. Pastors reference well-known philosophers or theologians not because the pastors agree with their primary ideas, but because the audience knows the names— and the pastors may well quote these sources out of context. The words fit with the pastor’s train of thought perhaps even better than his or her own words. Their meaning in the sermon, however, is quite different from what they meant in the original work, because the words have been recontextualized. The pastor has in mind what he or she wants to say; the words of a famous author allow pastors to express their thoughts more clearly than they could with their own words. An example of this phenomenon also takes place at the very beginning of John’s gospel. Scholars of ancient literature have found that almost every sentence in the first eighteen verses of the book can be traced back to literature available to John at the end of the first century. Their research does not reveal that John copied verbatim from pagan sources, but that he was highly selective in how he used their words. His thoughts were unique and creative, even if the words would have been very familiar to his audience. To explain further, one of the key words in those eighteen verses is “logos.” In John’s day philosophers used the term “logos”to refer to the timeless order of the universe and particular entities. Since this word had a technical, philosophical meaning, scholars have suggested he borrowed the word for the sake of its technical meaning. That this is not the case becomes clear when John boldly states that the Logos became flesh— something absolutely impossible if he is referring to the philosophical notion common to the word. In other words, he subverts the word and packs it with new meaning, perhaps one similar to the Old Testament understanding of wisdom as presented in Proverbs 8.

§107. THOUGHTS AND WORDS Before considering God’s contributions to the writing of Scripture, let us look at the relationship between thoughts and words. On one hand, verbal inspiration claims God is the author of the words of Scripture, apparently bypassing the thought processes of the Bible writers. Of course, prophets

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

401

were human beings, and as such had their own thoughts, but these were overruled by inspiration; God was in total control of his prophets’thinking and literary activities concerning Scripture. In this view biblical writers seem to think and write freely, yet at a deeper level of which they were unconscious, God was in control. Thus, the biblical words are not the prophet’s, but God’s. On the other hand, the historical-cognitive model proposes that the biblical writers were in charge of the literary process of writing Scripture, but not of the process through which God revealed His thoughts to them. Thus it seems to suggest a dichotomy between thought (revelation from God) and words (inspiration from humans). This is not actually what the new model is proposing; to explain why not is the purpose of this section.

1. Thought Inspiration Some Christians have created a similar dichotomy between thought and words to explain whatever they consider to be error in Scripture. For them, revelation is divine and infallible, but the words are simply how the biblical writers translated or incarnated divine, timeless thoughts into the human level of understanding. Since no one has access to the original prophetic thoughts, what they actually were specifically is open to question. Variations of this view range from claiming that God revealed only eternal timeless truths of a general, abstract nature, to proposing that God provided one thought for each word written in Scripture. The former gives rise to what some call “thought” inspiration; the latter is almost indistinguishable from verbal inspiration. In synthesis, thought inspiration claims God inspired divine ideas within the prophets, while they provided the words to convey them. Only the thoughts behind the words are inspired; the words are human and fallible. To reach God’s revelation, we must move constantly behind and beyond the words into the eternal truths they encase.

2. Problems with Thought Inspiration Unfortunately, this position on inspiration has serious deficiencies and,

HOME PAGE 402

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

therefore, must be rejected. First, thought inspiration collapses inspiration into revelation. It lacks biblical support and assumes unbiblical hermeneutical principles. Because divine assistance to the prophet did not reach the words, it limits divine intervention to revelation. In practice, it means we are stuck with only the fallible words of human beings, not what God really meant. Though thought inspiration accounts for the phenomena of Scripture better than does verbal inspiration, it does not explain how inspiration reaches the words (2 Timothy 3:16). Hans-Georg Gadamer suggests that “language and thinking about things are so bound together that it is an abstraction to conceive of the system of truths as a pregiven system of possibilities of being [in revelation-inspiration, divine thoughts] for which the signifying subject [biblical writer] selects corresponding signs [words].”5 In other words, thought and words belong together.6 A thought without words perishes in the mind of the thinker. The thought-word dichotomy assumed by proponents of thought inspiration is based on the same hermeneutical presuppositions used by classical Christian theologians to ground their soul-body dichotomy. They would say that as observing the body does not give us knowledge about the soul, so reading the text of Scripture leaves us clueless about what God told the Bible writer— that is, what the divine put, without words, into the human mind. The problem is ultimately this: if inspiration did not reach the words, how can we be sure that we are reading God’s thoughts in the Bible? The separation between thought and words allows for small errors; would not this add up to substantial errors in theology?

3. Thoughts in Words Let us take a moment to understand the relationship between thoughts and words. Words are not mere sounds or lines traced on paper. They have meanings, which we might call the results of human thinking. Words carry the thoughts they evoke. The dependence of words on thinking makes translation possible. For instance, we translate the English word “table” with the Spanish word “mesa.” The two different words are merely different signs carrying the same thought; both refer to the same object as perceived by the

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

403

mind. Translation between the two languages assumes the existence of a thought about a piece of furniture with four legs and a flat surface for a top. In the absence of such a thought, the translator needs, first, to experience the thought behind the words to make his translation possible. Thinking grounds words. But can we think without words? To answer a complex question briefly, yes, we can think without words, but most of the time we describe our thoughts to ourselves and others with words. While the former is a contemplative experience, the second is a social and dialogical experience. When we contemplate a picture or a sunset, we might think without words, tending to refer to what is happening as “experience” rather than thinking. Because such experience is not verbalized, we call it real life or practical. In a contemplative experience, we are thinking, but often without words. Social experience, on the other hand, requires words to communicate and build personal relations. Our thinking is shaped first by our mother tongue as we use its words to categorize what we perceive. Later, our thinking may be modified through what is known as reason: instead of merely perceiving things or acts, we connect ideas. Because they allow ideas to connect, words make reason possible. They are the building blocks of reason. Without reason, thoughts would remain disconnected, and people would be unable to communicate; social interaction would be impossible. The concepts just presented may seem confusing, but we must understand the folly of separating thought from words. With this in mind, we turn our attention to biblical inspiration.

4. Inspired Words Are the words of Scripture inspired? Many authors and believers assume that to answer yes means that one believes in verbal inspiration and an inerrant Scripture. We have thoroughly covered the problems with such a view; even so, the Bible affirms that through inspiration, God has somehow reached the book’s words. On the other hand, to say that the words of Scripture are not inspired assumes that God led in the process of revelation, but not in that of writing.

HOME PAGE 404

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

As we noted at the beginning of this section, this is incoherent. God reveals His thoughts to communicate with people and therefore has to be involved in the whole process. The question is not whether the words of Scripture are inspired, but what that means. There must be an alternative view to both verbal and thought inspiration. The historical-cognitive model does not reject the biblical affirmation, but rather those explanations. The difference in the interpretations of 2 Timothy 3:16 is based on the respective presuppositions. Both verbal and thought inspiration depends on those of classical philosophy, presuppositions we have dismissed and replaced with biblical ones. Our task, then, is to see how those biblical presuppositions lead us to understand how inspiration reached the Bibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s words. Would they lead us to deny the teachings of Scripture or to doubt its trustworthiness? By no means.

5. Thinking and Writing What happened when prophets wrote? Somehow, revealed thoughts were put into words. The historical-cognitive model suggests that the writing of Scripture was a rational process. Biblical writers were thinking not only as they received divine revelation, but also as they communicated it. Writing is a thought process shaping revelation and, therefore, the actual content of Scripture. Consequently, we should not conceive of inspiration as having an outcome identical to its starting point. Inspiration is not like a hose connecting a gasoline pump to the tank of a car. When we pump gas, the hose does not change the service stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s gas to something else. In contrast, a writer of scripture articulates what he received from God; as he does so, the words he uses give shape to those thoughts, that is, he alters them. These alterations are a part of the writing and, therefore, become part of divine revelation. Inspiration, as the actual process of writing, is the last step in the process of the incarnation of Scripture. The thinking process resulting in the writing of Scripture produced few alterations in the theophanic and prophetic patterns of revelation, compared with the historical, existential, and wisdom patterns. But whether it seems obvious, divine thinking permeates human thinking in all the patterns. Divine

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

405

inspiration, as we are about to see, is the component insuring that divine thinking also permeates the words through which revelation is communicated to the world. As we have noted repeatedly, in Scripture, we do not find God’s level of logic or rhetoric revealed to us, as the modes in which the Bible was written were human and imperfect. Yet the historical-cognitive model insists that the content we find there does originate in God’s wisdom. This fact, asserted by Scripture but largely ignored in Christian theology, has tremendous hermeneutical consequences, as we will see in Chapter 19.

§108. DIVINE CONTRIBUTION 1. Writing as a Creative Activity Because a writer thinks as he composes his ideas on the page, he finds that new ideas emerge in the process of writing. Writing is, therefore, a creative activity. That creativity does not extend only to the words, but also to the thoughts and truths expressed in a given work. This, in the case of Scripture, implies that the written text differs somehow from the content of revelation. Creative thinking takes place when authors attempt to express thoughts with words. Since scholarship indicates that biblical authors used sources, certain schools of criticism, especially tradition criticism, suggest that biblical writers were compilers of traditional information. In other words, they were not what we would think of as authors, but copiers and organizers of what others created, not unlike librarians or bibliographers. They assembled and organized what others thought, wrote, and transmitted, but contributed no thinking to the writing. If this is accurate, tradition, not any human beings in particular, would be the author of Scripture. Revelation-inspiration would have to act on tradition rather than people. Since the historical-cognitive model takes seriously what Scripture says about itself, it maintains, as we just pointed out, that the locus of revelationinspiration is the minds of the biblical writers (§105). The prophets and

HOME PAGE 406

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

apostles were not compilers, but thinkers; as they did their work, they created new pieces of thought.7 Even in cases when they consulted oral and written sources for their writings, they evaluated, criticized, and modified those they chose to use.

2. The Question of Inspiration We have asserted that since the writing of Scripture was a divine as well as a human phenomenon, God was involved in the thinking processes, the organization, selection of literary sources, writing and, if needed, editorial touch-ups. The question is this: how? What was the Holy Spirit’s role in the process of the creation of the Bible as a written work? As explained above, inspiration as divine intervention in the writing process does not create the contents; those have already been revealed. Instead, inspiration enhances the transmission of the contents and assures the record’s reliability. At the moment of writing, God’s work in the process of revelationinspiration was nearly complete. Revelation “causes” the biblical content; inspiration brings it to literary expression. Because the thinking and writing processes were inseparable, inspiration as well as revelation occurred within the minds of the biblical writers. In the remainder of this section, we will examine two integrated patterns of explanation, which may help us understand God’s involvement in the writing of Scripture, however tentative and preliminary that understanding may be. As in the case of revelation, the historical-cognitive model rejects the monolithic, single-pattern explanation of inspiration advocated by the other models. The complexity of inspiration instead requires a multiplicity of explanatory patterns. We will only discuss the general-supervision and remedial-corrective patterns here, but there may well be more.

3. General-Supervision Pattern Since inspiration is one of the many ways God acts within human history, it possesses the same characteristics as other acts of divine providence. As we discussed, the historical-cognitive model understands divine providence

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

407

differently than do the classical and evangelical models (§81.1). It is from this perspective that we consider God’s involvement in the writing of Scripture. While biblical writers did their work, God was providentially present, supervising the entire process. Through his omniscience and omnipresence, God was directly aware of all that was going on— the thought and linguistic processes— in the mind of biblical writers as they wrote. This side of inspiration is non-intrusive. God is not causing the thoughts or the words, but supervising the process of their free production in the mind of the writers, making certain that the contents are being recorded in a trustworthy way. In other words, divine intervention in this pattern is ancillary; it does not cause the writing through an act of overriding power, but supports it by divine grace and wisdom. The general supervision pattern of inspiration provides the basis for more active interventions of providence. It embraces all of Scripture. In contrast, the remedial-corrective pattern occurs only when it is needed. The generalsupervision pattern can be compared to a line underneath all of Scripture, whereas the remedial-corrective pattern appears only at certain points on that line. Because the general-supervision pattern introduces no modification into the human writing process, there must be a complementary pattern of divine inspiration— one that keeps the Bible writers from straying.

4. Remedial-Corrective Pattern From within the flow of human history, divine providence also works directly on the cognitive and linguistic processes through which the prophets wrote Scripture. God not only supervised the entire process of prophetic and apostolic writing, but also intervened in it as needed. This means that on occasion God assisted the biblical writers in their task of communication. In this way God insured that the prophets remained God’s faithful representatives. Divine contributions to the writing process in this pattern

HOME PAGE 408

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

serve to assure the reliability of the Bible as God’s word. As with the general-supervision pattern, the remedial-corrective pattern takes place within the inner recesses of the writers’minds. There, the Holy Spirit acts in ways unavailable to our study. Yet, we can find examples of how the Holy Spirit acted, in the pages of Scripture itself. a. An Aid to Memory The historical-cognitive model relies on human memory to play an irreplaceable role in the process of creating Scripture. After all, inspiration assumes revelation; writing God’s ideas down assumes that the writer received God’s ideas in the first place. He has those ideas within his memory, stored up within his brain. Remembering is the act of retrieving information previously processed and housed by the human brain. After the last supper and before Judas’s betrayal, Jesus assured his disciples that “the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26). Here, Christ spoke about bringing to memory things from the past, specifically his own words, as they would be recorded in the Bible. Although the statement directly refers to inspiration within the historical pattern of revelation, we can safely assume God lent his assistance in other patterns as well. This divine assistance provided aid to the prophets’normal capabilities, not an elevation of them. The apostles’ memories of the actions and words of Christ were normal memories; the Holy Spirit merely acted to clarify and call them to mind. We do not know how God accomplished this task. Obviously, he has the capacity to work on the human brain, selectively stimulating or repressing memories when necessary as the prophets wrote Scripture. b. New Revelations Since, as we have discussed, ideas emerge and develop during writing, we can assume that during the process, God assisted prophets with new

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

409

representations of the truths they were recording. After all, Christ promised divine guidance and revelation to the disciples: “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own initiative, but whatever he hears, he will speak; and he will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify me, for he will take of mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that he takes of mine and will disclose it to you” (John 16:12-15). It is true that here Jesus spoke of the historical and prophetic patterns of revelation. But He did not exclude divine assistance in the development of new meaningful forms through the process of inspiration. Meaningful forms in inspiration differ from meaningful forms from revelation in that the meaningful forms of revelation express the issues and call for inspiration, where the meaningful forms that emerge during inspiration depend on what was already revealed. Again, these revelations-within-inspiration were occasional and only supplemented the prophet’s writing activities. They emerged from the thinking processes in the prophets’ minds as they wrote. The prophets and apostles were free to decide how to write. What they wrote, however, was strictly what God revealed to them. c. Selection of Literary Sources We know that biblical writers used a variety of written and oral sources in the process of revelation-inspiration (cf. §81-83; §106.c). Here we must ask how God was involved in the use of such sources. How did biblical writers select them? What was the Holy Spirit’s role? Because of their emphasis on God’s sovereign control, the classical and evangelical models of revelation-inspiration propose there were few sources at all, and God selected them. In contrast, the modern model allows for the free use of sources and traditions without divine guidance at all. The historical-cognitive model, in its attempt to account for the entire range of evidence in the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture, sees the use, selection, and interpretation of sources as the task of the human agents.

HOME PAGE 410

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Prepared by God for the job, they remained under constant surveillance and occasional aid of the Holy Spirit. As we have previously discussed, the Bible writers received from God a variety of meaningful forms of revelation that shaped their thinking about those revealed truths. This led them to select oral and written sources of both revelation (in indirect sources or forms) and language (literary sources) with which to better express their thoughts. Although God could have intervened supernaturally to select the sources for His writers, they generally had to do their homework and choose content and literary sources themselves. This does not mean they chose their sources independently from divine direction. It means only that divine activity worked within them, stealthily shaping the interpretive and theological perspectives from which biblical writers thought, wrote, and chose their sources. Through conversion, sanctification, and the meaningful forms given them by God, the minds of the prophets and apostles were able to distinguish reliably between divine truth and human lies. The apostle Paul is an example of how God shaped His writers’minds. Even when Gamaliel’s influence appears in Paul’s work, his theological thinking was shaped by divine revelations from God. His conversion and divine revelations from God shaped Paul’s hermeneutical presuppositions and theological perspective. From there he selected revelatory and literary sources that would convey divine thinking faithfully and reliably. In 2 Corinthians 12:7, Paul speaks of an “abundance of the revelations” he had received. In Galatians 1:12 and 2:2, he writes that he received the Gospel by a revelation of Jesus Christ. Elsewhere he confesses that divine revelation shaped his “insight into the mystery of Christ” (Ephesians 3:3-4). This insight must have guided him in all phases of his work, as he reflected on the practical issues to which he was writing and chose sources accordingly. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul addressed various situations related to marriage which were confronting believers. Throughout the chapter, he attributes what he says to God (verse 10) and at times to himself (12). Some have suggested that only what Paul attributes to God is inspired. But Paul considered

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

411

his opinions as trustworthy representatives of God’s view (25) because the Holy Spirit was working in his life (40). This is not a matter of expressing divine thought with human words, but of Paul’s opinions faithfully representing divine thought. Though, as we have stated, the biblical writers were enabled by salvation and sanctification to select the right sources for their writings, we must never forget that such a selection required that they rethink the issues based on revelation. Any idea or expression in their sources had to be recontextualized within the new frame of thought provided by God; once that happened, those sources properly revealed divine thought. d. Overruling Prophetic Thinking God can intervene in prophetic thinking and freedom should he so choose. In Scripture, the incident between Balak and Balaam (Numbers 22-24) exemplifies God’s capability for overruling prophetic thinking. But an examination of the story shows that God’s exercise of sovereignty in that case is much different than how the classical and evangelical models assume sovereignty works. Balaam was not a false prophet, but a true prophet of God who went astray. A false prophet would not have had direct communication with God as Balaam had; on the other hand, a true prophet could not have even entertained the suggestion to curse Israel (22:6-7). Balaam should have had enough discernment to see the absurdity of the request (see Hebrews 5:14), but he had the audacity to present it before God (22:8-12). Clearly, the question here is one of revelation rather than inspiration. The problem was in what the prophet was asked to say, not how he was to say it. Balak’s request contradicted previous revelation, so while God gave Balaam permission to accompany Balak’s servants, he could say only what God let him (22:20), even if he did not approve (22:22). Balaam knew that he would be able to speak only what God would have him speak (22:18); that is, he knew inspiration could limit or prevent what he said. Still, he had been offered money, and so pushed the issue as far as he could. In case Balaam had any doubt about how inspiration might prevent him from

HOME PAGE 412

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

speaking, God gave him an object lesson. On his way to visit Balak, he found himself conversing with his donkey (22:28-30).8 At the end of the episode, “the angel of the Lord said to Balaam, ‘Go with the men, but you shall speak only the word which I tell you’”(22:35). God would use an unfaithful prophet, even if he had to use his preventive power to override the normal functioning of Balaam’s speech, just as he had with the natural capabilities of the animal’s thinking and expression. God was forced to “make a donkey out of Balaam,” using him as a puppet to pronounce a blessing instead of the curse (Numbers 24). The point is unmistakable; when God overrides human freedom, humans are deprived of their rational human nature and become like animals. Certainly, the Bible writers were not animals; their freedom of thought was not taken away by a sovereign God. Balaam’s case may have been included because it was so unusual; he provided the exception proving the rule of how revelation-inspiration normally functions in Scripture. But this episode also shows what God may do when his prophets’ expressions willingly or unwillingly misrepresent him. That God is capable of overriding his writers’oral and written expressions of revelation grounds our certainty of Scripture’s reliability. At the same time, we know this pattern applies only when Bible writers or their expressions depart from God's will.

§109. COMPLEXITY OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION: INTERACTION BETWEEN PATTERNS We have accepted the biblical idea that God revealed Himself in many ways (Hebrews 1:1) and discussed some of the most obvious patterns through which divine thoughts became incarnate in human language. Our exploration has not been exhaustive or detailed, but does present an overall model of operation for the whole of Scripture. The value of the historical-cognitive model will emerge from its

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

413

application to the interpretation of Scripture. As students of the Bible consider what its text says in light of the historical-cognitive model, they should keep in mind that any given passage may have resulted from more than one pattern. As we have noted, we cannot assume that prophetic books such as Daniel resulted from the prophetic pattern alone; the historical pattern is present there as well. Careful analysis of various passages may reveal other examples of the interplay between various patterns of revelationinspiration. Researchers may even propose new patterns of revelation and inspiration based on the text of Scripture. As new patterns are discovered and analyzed, the historical-cognitive model will continue to develop.

§110. REVIEW • Description of inspiration. Inspiration is the process through which divine and human agencies interacted to write Scripture. • Hermeneutical presuppositions of inspiration. The presuppositions are the same as those used in discussing the patterns of revelation. In both cases we assume that both God and his human agents worked historically within the flow of human history. • Necessity of inspiration. Because the human writers were able to think freely, and God often acted in stealth mode, misrepresentation of divine thought could have occured in the writing of Scripture. To prevent this, God acted in inspiration to insure that the Bible faithfully represents his thoughts. • The locus of inspiration. As in the case of revelation, inspiration— divine contributions to the writing of Scripture— took place in the mind of the human writer.

HOME PAGE 414

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

• Linguistic mode. Although the inspiration of Scripture occurred in the imperfect mode of human language, its perfection remained because God had already accommodated Himself to human thinking and language by incarnating His thoughts. • Book composition and style. The composition and literary styles of each biblical book was left to the free initiative of human writers. • The Moses-Aaron analogy. Moses and Aaron together functioned like God and each of His prophets. Moses’act of “putting the words” in Aaron’s mouth was similar to God’s role in revealing the content of Scripture. Aaron's expression of Moses’ thoughts corresponds to the role of the prophet in writing the revealed contents of Scripture. • The literary forms of scripture and their origin. The literary forms of Scripture (for example, law, riddles, royal decrees, psalms, prayers, parables, and apocalypses) are not determined by God’s sovereign power (as in the classical and evangelical models) or the socioeconomic group from which they arose (as in the modern model). Instead, according to the historical-cognitive model, they arose from the interplay of several factors: the meaningful forms of divine communication; the revelatory patterns from which they came; the nature and purpose of the issue to be communicated; the audience; and the literary inclination and strategy of biblical writers. • Editorial work. Jeremiah’s rewrite of the book destroyed by Jehoiakim suggests that biblical writers could edit their revealed and inspired work. If the second version of Jeremiah’s book was written from memory as the

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

415

passage suggests, it probably looked more like a new edition than a verbatim copy. Although we cannot expand this episode into a general rule, it demonstrates that inspired works can be edited by inspired prophets. • Distinction of revelatory and literary sources. Written revelatory sources come from divinely originated meaningful forms, and include interpretive patterns as well as data. Literary sources, in contrast, are composed of human reflection on religious and secular issues; when used in the Bible, they provide only words, not interpretive patterns or data. • Recontextualization of literary sources. Literary sources were used within the intellectual context of each biblical writer, not within that of the sources from which they were taken. In this way, the borrowed words acquired meanings as used in Scripture different than those they had in the original sources. • Problems with thought inspiration. Thought inspiration proposes that God’s intervention falls short of the written words. This view has several weaknesses: it lacks biblical support; it reduces inspiration to revelation; and it assumes nonbiblical hermeneutical principles. Moreover, in all practicality we have no access to the thoughts of the Bible writers; they are dead. • Thinking grounds words. Words are not mere sounds or lines on paper. They convey meaning produced by the human mind. Words carry meanings or thoughts between minds. • The inspiration of words does not assume the verbal-inspiration theory. The historical-cognitive model does not reject the biblical affirmation that the words of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit; it does, however,

HOME PAGE 416

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

reject the theoretical explanation provided by verbal inspiration. • Biblical writing as a thinking process. Biblical writers were thinkers not only as they received divine revelation, but also as they communicated it. The process of writing Scripture was itself a process of thinking that shaped revelation and, therefore, the actual contents of Scripture. • Biblical writers were authors, not compilers. Writing is a creative activity. Biblical writers were in this sense authors, not compilers. • Creativity extends not only to their literary expression, but also to the thoughts and truths in the Bible. This implies that what we now possess in the written text differs from what the Bible writers received in revelation. • The question of inspiration. What was the role of the Holy Spirit in the writing of Scripture? • Multiple patterns of inspiration. The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration rejects the singlepattern strategy adopted by the classical, evangelical, and modern models, and instead advocates a multiplicity of explanatory patterns. • General-supervision pattern. While biblical authors were writing, God was present, supervising the entire process by His providence. This means that through his omniscience and omnipresence, God was constantly aware of all the thought and linguistic processes of the biblical writers as they wrote. This component of inspiration is nonintrusive. • Remedial-corrective pattern.

HOME PAGE INSPIRATION

417

Within the flow of history, divine inspiration worked directly on the cognitive and linguistic processes through which prophets wrote Scripture; thus God could direct the writers to amend any inaccuracies they had written. • Remembering previous revelation. God occasionally helped prophets remember certain revealed truths. This supernatural assistance does not imply the elevation of the prophet’s mental capabilities, but rather divine aid to normal capabilities. • New revelations. God assisted biblical writers by giving them fresh revelations as they wrote. These revelations did not initiate writing, but enhanced it. • Selection of literary sources. God aided biblical writers in the normal process of selecting literary sources by means of miraculous interventions. • Overruling prophetic thinking. God could overrule prophetic writing when prophets intentionally or unintentionally tried to replace divine truths with their own views (Balaam, for example). • Complexity of the patterns of revelation-inspiration and their interaction. The historical-cognitive model explains the genesis of Scripture by suggesting multiple patterns of revelation-inspiration. Analysis of each Bible book will likely reveal multiple patterns in their formation, operating together in complex interactions based on the issues addressed.

ENDNOTES 1

Achtemeier, Paul J. Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of

HOME PAGE 418

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Christian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999). 2

Richard M. Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, Commentary Reference Series (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 2000), 75. 3

S teven L. Mackenzie and Stephen R. Haynes, eds. To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, rev. ed. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1999). 4

What God communicated was already limited by His accommodation to human thought and language, and by the revelatory patterns He used. 5

Gadamer, 417. Gadamer seems to imply that Greek philosophy, on the basis of its timeless notion of reality, draws an abstract wedge between thought and word (Ibid., 417-418). 6

Our thoughts are influenced by the language that shapes them.

This runs against the assumptions behind Form Criticism. Gunkel assumed that Scripture came out of a long tradition of oral and written sources. Authors, according to this view, are the originators at the beginning of those traditions. Scripture, as we have it today, is the result of the cut and paste activity of compilers. Redaction criticism, however, sees the authors of the Gospels as thinking theologians. To a lesser degree, Wellhausen’s classical formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch considered the writers of the present final text of Scripture to be authors. 8

Critics working from the encounter theory of revelation-inspiration consider this episode to be a fable in which animals talk. Since we know animals do not talk, this story could not really have taken place. This is consistent with higher critics’ convictions that God cannot talk to prophets either. In the historical-cognitive model, however, God is able to speak to humans, and is certainly able to make animals speak. He is also able to override human freedom if He so chooses.

HOME PAGE

19. HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

In previous chapters, we have examined other models and the hermeneutical effects they have on the interpretation of Scripture. In other words, we have seen how assuming that God is ultimately timeless affects what the Bible’s words are believed to mean— whether they lead one to nebulous and limited “timeless” truths or non-cognitive religious experience. The historical-cognitive model, on the other hand, begins with both the doctrine and phenomena of the object studied— the Bible itself. The Bible presents itself as divinely revealed and inspired, yet written by finite human beings. Moreover, God is depicted in Scripture as clearly able to act within time. These aspects of Scripture, taken together and going beyond previous models, have led us to the current model. The goal of this chapter is to begin exploring the effects of the historical-cognitive model as a set of hermeneutical presuppositions for understanding the Bible.

§111. THE MACRO HERMENEUTICAL ROLE OF REVELATION-INSPIRATION 1. The Two-Way Relationship Between Revelation-Inspiration and Hermeneutics At the very beginning of our study, we directed our attention to the two-way

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

421

relationship between revelation-inspiration and hermeneutics. On one hand, our interpretive principles influence our understanding of revelationinspiration; on the other, how we view revelation-inspiration affects our hermeneutics (Â§2.5.c). Is this a vicious circle? The answer is no, because the doctrine of revelation-inspiration is not the source of the interpretive principles we use to formulate it. As we have throughout this book, we must keep in mind that a model is an interpretation; that interpretation necessarily involves interpretive, or hermeneutical, principles. The historical-cognitive model defines those principles by beginning with the available facts. Since theologians generally have built previous theories of revelation-inspiration on the doctrine or phenomena of Scripture, this model chooses to define its hermeneutical principles from both sets of data. In other words, our hermeneutical principles are not derived from the historical-cognitive model, but from the evidence that led us to the model in the first place. We did not assume the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration to ground the hermeneutical principles we used to formulate it. We instead had to assume a hermeneutic because any doctrine of revelation-inspiration is an interpretation based on hermeneutical principles. This, then, is the first half of the two-way relationship we are discussing. We had to have a particular hermeneutic to understand revelation-inspiration.

2. Grounding the Naive Reading of Scripture In this chapter, we are exploring the second half of the two-way relationship: how the historical-cognitive model functions as an overarching presupposition of Christian theology. We have already done the same for each of the previous three models. In those analyses, we saw that how one understands revelation-inspiration dramatically affects oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theological output. I have frequently heard historical-critical exegetes mistakenly affirm that their approach to the interpretation of Scripture denies revelation-inspiration. They take Scripture to be uninspired, or just like any other book. What they

HOME PAGE 422

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

mean is that they simply do not agree with the classical or evangelical models of revelation-inspiration. But they fail to see that in so doing, they also assume an interpretation of Scripture’s origin— hence, a doctrine of revelation-inspiration. Some of these exegetes may be unaware that their attempt to read the Bible without presuppositions— “scientifically”— finds its explicit ground in the encounter theory of revelation-inspiration, which does in fact provide the intellectual and theological grounds for the modern and postmodern schools.1 The historical-cognitive model gives explicit theoretical ground to the naive reading of Scripture, making such reading by non-theologians intellectually possible. To read Scripture naively is to believe that what one reads in Scripture is true. The historical-cognitive model, then, shows that the naive reading or face value of Scripture can be maintained as a sound theological option. In this chapter, we will examine the effects— the basic hermeneutical outcomes— of the historical-cognitive model, by exploring how it operates on cognitive foundations, theological sources, overarching hermeneutical principles, biblical theology, and systematic theology.

§112 RECLAIMING SCRIPTURE The first hermeneutical effect of applying the historical-cognitive model is the affirmation of the Bible as the basic cognitive principle of Christian theology. Understanding how the entire texts of Old and New Testament were revealed and inspired establishes the necessary cognitive and literary connections between God and the words of the Bible. Scripture becomes the sole source from which Christian theology acquires its teachings about God and His actions in history.

1. The Effects of Reclaiming Scripture The historical-cognitive model returns Scripture to the forefront of Christian

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

423

theology. The significance of this is apparent when one contrasts the historical-cognitive model with the other three; the previous models all submit Scripture to other presuppositions, rather than submitting their presuppositions to the Bible. The classical model of revelation-inspiration submits Scripture to classical philosophy, confining Scripture’s cognitive contributions to mere “timeless truth.” As a result, only few truths really determine Christian doctrine and theology. Classical theology is built on this confluence between philosophical and biblical information. The modern model likewise submits Scripture to modern philosophy, but with an opposite result. In this model, Scripture contains no certain truth because there is no cognitive connection between the text and God. Scripture becomes a book of human fables and folk traditions. Any knowledge of the true God consists only of the imaginative projection of human fears and hopes. If the classical model emasculated Scripture, the modern model killed it. At first glance, the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration seems to affirm Scripture in the highest possible way. But like the classical model, it rejects the possibility that divine thought can enter history. The result is that God is seen to speak from a timeless heaven, outside the temporal realm, rather than from within the fray of human history. The historical context and articulation of Scripture becomes irrelevant. One clear example of this phenomenon is the supposed discontinuity between Old and New Testaments. From the perspective of the evangelical model, revelation is not historical but “progressive.” God’s revelation in Christ is progress over Old Testament revelation and, therefore, supercedes and replaces it. There is a radical dichotomy between Old and New Testaments. Instead of developing salvation over the flow of history, God is believed always to reveal the same salvific ideas from the outside; each new revelation is clearer and deeper than the ones preceding. Since Christ is the full and complete revelation of God, he replaces all prior revelation. Consequently, the New Testament replaces the Old regarding revelation of divine will, teachings, and actions.

HOME PAGE 424

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

This notion has fateful hermeneutical consequences for Christian theology. Whoever builds theology on the New Testament alone removes it from its intellectual context; in other words, the New Testament builds directly on the Old. Even Jesus Christ, after the resurrection, could not make His disciples understand His awesome resurrection except by approaching the event from what He Himself had revealed to the prophets in the Old Testament (see Luke 24). The New Testament requires an intellectual context to understand it; without the Old Testament, theologians are driven to a surrogate context to replace it. In other words, they need other sources. Sola Scriptura is thus replaced by prima Scriptura. The historical-cognitive model, in contrast, affirms the whole of the Bible as the cognitive foundation of Christian theology; the New Testament is left in its natural intellectual setting, that of the Old Testament. The evangelical view of inspiration depends on a timeless notion of God and results in a split between two discontinuous wholes (Old and New Testaments). As you may have noticed, the timelessness of God also affects how many evangelicals view salvation (law and grace). In other words, both the evangelical view of revelation-inspiration and that of salvation results from assuming Greek hermeneutical presuppositions for use in theology. Because of its foundational role, however, the evangelical understanding of revelation-inspiration results in a non-historical hermeneutic for its theology. This point is the basis for what is known as the fundamentalist interpretation of Scriptureâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; one that ultimately rejects the historical nature of divine activities and any consequent theological understandings. Let us pause for a moment to consider a frequent reaction to my presentation of the historical-cognitive model. I am aware that many evangelicals reading this book will staunchly deny the evangelical view of revelation-inspiration as I have described it; in other words, I am told I have misunderstood that view. To those readers, I suggest that they are both correct and incorrect. The truth is that quite a few evangelical theologians claim to subscribe to a view of revelationinspiration very similar to the historical-cognitive model. If a person reading this believes my interpretation of revelation-inspiration does not correctly represent the evangelical view, that person may be saying that my representation of the

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

425

evangelical view does not correspond with their understanding of it, or with how another evangelical writer has described it. I suggest those critics do two things. First, they should explore the hermeneutical and theological underpinnings of official evangelical affirmations on Scripture. They may be surprised to discover that they do not agree with them. Second, they should compare it with the historical-cognitive model as an alternative explanation. Many readers may well say they have approached the Bible through the lens of the historical-cognitive model all their lives. I am convinced this demonstrates that the historical-cognitive model is not an innovation birthed from the imagination of a lonely theologian, but the articulation of an understanding of revelation-inspiration faithful to the evidence— the doctrine and phenomena of Scripture. Anyone who reads the Bible in a sincere attempt to understand will find evidence in support of the historicalcognitive model. To summarize, by going beyond current models, the historical-cognitive model reclaims Scripture as the cognitive, historically incarnated revelation of God’s thoughts and acts as the foundation of Christian theology.

2. Affirming Tota Scriptura The historical-cognitive model reclaims the entire text of Scripture as a revelation of divine actions and thinking; in other words it affirms the tota Scriptura principle. This means that to understand God, we need the Bible in its entirety, not just some select portions. Each passage reveals some aspect of God and His relationship with His creation. Previous models of revelation-inspiration affirm the value of some passages of the Bible, implying that Scripture gives us more than we need for our spiritual or theological undertakings. To know God and his truth, then, we do not need to read or understand the entire Bible, but only a sample. To develop our theology, we are directed not to use all scriptural data, but to select portions from the whole according to our prior hermeneutical principles, including the doctrine of revelation-inspiration. The classical model leads us to believe that while most of Scripture is comprised of illustrations of God’s timeless truths, we need only a few of its

HOME PAGE 426

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

propositions to understand its message. We should build our theology by sifting the eternal truths of Scripture from their temporal-historical surroundings. The modern model asserts that Scripture gives us pointers to how past generations experienced the transcendent, timeless God. Our theology is noncognitive, and depends on the selection of a spiritual, existential experience from the imaginative literary forms recorded for us. Theology becomes a selective and critical reflection on human tradition, rather than on divine revelation. Theologians of this school attempt to understand the “faith,” or tradition of the community, not knowledge of “divine revelation.” The evangelical model’s central point is that Scripture reveals eternal, timeless salvation for us in the cross of Jesus Christ. We should accordingly build our theology by selecting biblical texts that speak about Christ’s salvation, such as those concerning Jesus’death, justification by faith, and grace. Anything else in Scripture may be included if it supports, symbolizes or foreshadows these salvific truths. A systematic principle of selection is thus arbitrarily imposed on the Bible, called in the exegetical process the “theological context” of the text. Consequently, even when the model claims that the entire Bible is inspired in such a way that God overrules the freedom of individual writers, theology has need of only few passages of Scripture. The bulk of Scripture is excluded. Moreover, this model also requires a multiple-sources approach; theologians are forced to understand Christ on the basis of human philosophical, scientific, theological, and experiential conclusions— hence the fragmentation of Christian theology into modern and postmodern schools. Those who have watched the theological currents of the twentieth century might observe how modern and postmodern evangelical theologies depend not on the Bible, but on the ever-changing movements of human culture. This observation has led to my conviction that it is time for a new reformation, one I believe is more urgently needed than that of Luther’s time because the original cognitive foundations of Christian theology have been ignored and/or replaced for centuries. The intellectual foundations on which we theologians built during all those years were flawed. We need new foundations.

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

427

Revelation-inspiration must be understood as the historical incarnation of divine actions and thinking. By so doing, the historical-cognitive model affirms that all of Scripture is necessary for Christian religion and theology, disavowing any “canon within a canon” interpretive strategies. By affirming that the whole of Scripture is revealed and inspired, the historical-cognitive model sets the stage for another, final Reformation. This principle, tota Scriptura, has vast hermeneutical consequences for Christian theology. Let us examine a few of the most prominent ones.

3. Broadening the Knowledge Base and Task of Theology The historical-cognitive model broadens both the cognitive informational base and scope of Christian theology, because it sees the text not as historically conditioned but as historically constituted.. What are these concepts? How are they different? a. Scripture as Historically Conditioned The historical conditioning of Scripture means that the historical and cultural trappings of contents are determined to be externally attached to their supernatural cause. In other words, by definition, theologians may differentiate and separate what led to the recording of Scripture from its time and place. The historical contents and condition are disposable because what matters is the supernatural, divine cause. To understand further what “historically conditioned” means, we must consider the two agencies involved in the revelation-inspiration event. In this process, God’s action is understood as the “cause” of Scripture; what human agencies did is its “condition.” What is the difference? Both are causes, but the cause is always subordinate to the condition. For instance, a ship moves through the ocean from port to port. We could say that the cause for this occurence is the engine-driven propeller; the condition for movement would be water for the propeller. Without water (condition), the propellor could create no movement (cause). According to the classical and evangelical models, the cause of Scripture is God, while human agencies are the condition. As cause, God reveals

HOME PAGE 428

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

timeless truths and produces words. As conditions, human agencies provide the environment for the communication to take place. In other words, God’s words are the engine and propellor communicating in the water of human agencies. The human environment includes the prophet’s literary style as well as his historical situation or culture. These conditions are temporal and historical, and thus external to the cause and its cognitive activity. As a condition, history is external to the theological contents of Scripture. A disassociation takes place between the timeless theological contents of Scripture and its historically conditioned form. Theologians, then, build their teachings not on the historical contents of Scripture, but on the timeless truth it contains. The modern model of revelation-inspiration also considers God to be the cause of Scripture and the human agent as its condition. Like the classical and evangelical models, the timeless theological aspects of the Bible are disassociated from its historical form. The difference with the other models is that the theological “content” of Scripture has no cognitive content, but consists of an existential relationship outside the flow of time. All theologians have left is the historically conditioned form of Scripture. Unfortunately, just as in the classical and evangelical models, the historically conditioned form is external and, therefore, unnecessary for theological purposes. Scripture’s function is reduced from shaping theology to its role in community worship. b. Scripture as Historically Constituted By rejecting the timeless view of God on which the classical, evangelical, and modern models of revelation-inspiration are built, the historical-cognitive model proposes that the contribution of the human agency is an internal condition (rather than external) to the formation of the “eternal truths” of Scripture. (I place the word “eternal” in quotation marks because in Scripture, eternity is no longer tied to timelessness.2) The historical meaning of Scripture is thus far from unnecessary; it is essential to theological research. In contrast with historical conditioning, in which the meaning of the Bible is divorced from its historical and cultural contexts, Scripture as

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

429

historically constituted means that the historical and cultural aspects of the text are inseparable from truth revealed by God. The historical-cognitive model integrates the divine and human contributions to Scripture into an indivisible whole, including not only the Old and New Testaments equally, but also their entire content. Tota Scriptura cannot work as the cognitive foundation of Christian theology without understanding the book as historically constituted. Moreover, the historical-cognitive model considers the entirety of Scripture as essential data for searching the truths of Christianity. According to the other models, the contents of Scripture are largely superfluous in comparison to the amount of theological truth they contain. Conversely, according to the historical-cognitive model, the contents of Scripture are in fact too small for the theological truths they speak about. According to prior models, one arrives at theological truth by distilling it from Scripture. In the historical-cognitive model, Scripture itself is a distillation of the truths it illumines; in other words, truth is always greater than its scriptural representations. The apostle John pointed this out when he remarked that the world itself could not contain all the books he would need to write if he were to record all of Jesus’ earthly activities (John 21:25). In other words, what we find in the New Testament is a drop in the ocean compared with the truth as it was incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. Theologians cannot afford to do any less than make use of all of Scripture’s divine truths.

§113 RETHINKING THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY The question of theological sources may be one of the most important issues in beginning theological studies. To study something, we need data; without data, we cannot research. Theology as the study of God and His relationship to reality also requires a set of data on which Christians can agree to study to search God’s truth.

HOME PAGE 430

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

1. Multiple Sources For centuries Christian theology has been building on multiple sources of theological data, even after the sola Scriptura challenge of the Reformation. Even conservative evangelical theology begins with what is known as the Wesleyan quadrilateral of sources: Scripture, experience, reason, and tradition. To use multiple sources, or what we might call a multisource platform, for theological knowledge is to assume natural revelation, with each source serving as a conduit of divine information. Individual sources are supposed to render different access to the knowledge of God, with each accepted on the same cognitive basis, even if first consideration is assumed to be given to the Bible. The pool of revealed information in this scenario is much broader and more complex than that of a sola Scriptura approach. As we have just seen, the classical, evangelical, and modern models of revelation-inspiration require multiple sources for their hermeneutical principles. Reducing the number of sources to one, the Bible, means formulating a theological hermeneutic such as the historical-cognitive model. If all Christianity were to do so, it would spell the end of previous theological traditions, highly unlikely because millions of Christians are convinced that reason rather than Scripture reveals the truth about reality. In this area, Christianity has, almost from the beginning, always given credence to philosophy and science over Scripture. The selection of theological sources is the most important decision theologians make. The choice can be reduced to that between Scripture and tradition, the latter of which is the basis of the multisource platform. If tradition is chosen, Scripture is gradually reduced to a symbolic role with little or no role in the task of ascertaining theological truth. Because the hermeneutical principles of such a theology are non-scriptural, the consequent doctrines are, too. Of course, this situation varies according to theological models and Christian traditions. Some traditions, such as those of conservative

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

431

evangelical denominations, subordinate Scripture to tradition in a lesser degree than do the liberal Protestant churches. But by building on tradition, both conservative and liberal approaches are depending on human rather than divine thoughts for truth. Roman Catholic theologians and those following the modern model of revelation-inspiration give such a significant role to tradition that Scripture has no practical role as a vehicle of divine thought. Theology for them becomes a reflection of the religious imaginations of past communities of faith.

2. One Source: Scripture The historical-cognitive model rejects the multisource platform for theological knowledge, because it rejects natural theology as a revelation from God (See Chapter 2). Because human reason in philosophy and science results in human rather than divine understanding, we cannot automatically assume these teachings and conclusions to be true and apply them as criteria for judging the veracity and meaning of Scripture. Only in Scripture do we find the revelation of divine thoughts as they became incarnate in human language through the ministry of prophets and apostles. Reason, science, philosophy, and experience render only human points of view and conflicting interpretations. Consequently, they cannot be considered to be sources of theological data. Scripture alone reveals divine thoughts. In this sense, the historical-cognitive model shows how and why Christian theology should build its hermeneutical principles and basic doctrines from scriptural data alone. The amount of revealed knowledge resulting from the assumption of the historical-cognitive model as a hermeneutical presupposition is astonishing, tota Scriptura in all its historical complexity. But as we have noted, even if all of Scripture is considered the data field for theology, it is but a brief introduction to theological knowledge as it is in Christ. The Bible tells us all we need to know God and experience salvation; it is not a complete compendium, exhausting the mind of God. Even eternity cannot give us that.

HOME PAGE 432

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

3. Prima Scriptura and Theological Resources Theology is a complex activity even when it is reduced to the Bible as a single source of information. But that study also involves a number of extrabiblical resources. For instance, in order to understand Scripture, one must begin with the original text. To understand those ancient languages one needs a number of language resources. Moreover, because divine thought was incarnated into history, one must study history to understand the setting in which biblical authors lived and wrote. Using these extrabiblical resources is not a return to the multisource platform, but an affirmation of the prima Scriptura principle. Scripture still has cognitive primacy over all resources theologians may call on in their work. Using what they have learned by using the tota and sola Scriptura principles, theologians place all human resources under the judgment of biblical revelation. All secondary resources are selected, analyzed, and, if necessary, recontextualized for theological use. Science proper and other forms of extrabiblical research are called to play an assisting role, but never as hermeneutical guide or cognitive source. Theology must build on data originating in God; that data, according to Christianity, has reached humanity through revelation in various forms, from which an inspired record has been created. That revelatory record gives Christian theology its foundation and right to exist. Without Scripture, Christianity would not have taken place. If Scripture consists of myth, as the modern model claims, the faith is a hoax, and those who continue practicing Christian rituals are foolish. If, on the other hand, Scripture contains only few timeless truths about God and salvation within a sea of illustrations designed not to reveal those truths but to make suggestions for living, then Christianity has developed on the basis of inadequate information. Scripture must be complemented with information from the hard sciences in order to be of any use. Christianity is thus subject to constantly changing human interpretations, taking the church far from the Christ of Scripture to its present situation of secularization and institutionalization. As we have shown in this book, these views have gained prominence

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

433

because Christian theologians have assumed that Scripture can be understood only from a philosophical hermeneutical perspective. By showing that this is not so, the historical-cognitive model leads to a hermeneutic rooted in biblical, historical thinking.

ยง114 RETHINKING THE HERMENEUTICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY Another effect of the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration is the reconstruction of theological hermeneutics based on the Bible. Such a reconstruction becomes necessary due to the following facts. To begin, the hermeneutical principles of current Christian theology are dictated by the structure and conclusions of human thinking. This contradicts a Scriptural hermeneutic not only in origin, but also in content. One proceeds from God and the other from human wisdom. One considers divine reality to be timeless, the other that it is temporal and historical. In the classical era, philosophy and metaphysics ruled over theology. In modern and postmodern times, the structure and conclusions of sciences, including history, anthropology, sociology, and psychology, dictate its hermeneutical principles. The revelation-inspiration models of all three eras work from philosophically-defined hermeneutics that cover the entirety of Christian theology. These theological models justify their use of extrabiblical presuppositions in two ways. First, it is argued that Scripture does not deal with the question of reality or knowledge, a foundational point for doing theology. Reality is addressed, however, by philosophical and scientific studies. Since we need a general understanding of reality to develop theology, we are forced outside of Scripture to find the hermeneutical tools we need. Hence the introduction of extrabiblical hermeneutical principles. Only when one has deconstructed Christian theological traditions can one see that Scripture does consider the issues of reality and knowledge necessary for building the presuppositions of Christian theology. Second, theologians justify the use of philosophy and science in theology via the biblical notion of general revelation. Since God revealed himself

HOME PAGE 434

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

through nature, it is argued that science and philosophy are also His revelations. Unfortunately, this position fails to distinguish between general revelation and natural theology (see §7). The historical-cognitive model not only deconstructs the hermeneutical role philosophy and the sciences have played in shaping Christian theology. It also shows it is possible to discover and adopt biblical presuppositions and consequent theological hermeneutics. A reconstruction of hermeneutical principles based on Scripture becomes possible by using the whole Bible— the tota Scriptura principle, affirmed by the historical-cognitive model. The hermeneutical presuppositions involved in creating the historicalcognitive model— the nature and actions of God and human beings— remain active in the study of all theological issues. To be sure, these are not the only hermeneutical presuppositions involved in doing theology. But they affect the formulation of all subsequent presuppositions. At this level we must remind ourselves of the role of the sola Scriptura principle; that simply means we must secure the definition of all presuppositions and hermeneutical principles from the Bible and biblical thinking alone. This hermeneutical effect has lasting repercussions on the entire theological task. The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration could only emerge once we had challenged the hermeneutical foundations on which former models operated. By so doing, we have entered into the “inner sanctum,” where the most basic ideas at the center of Christian theology have been conceived and formulated.

1. Traditional Approaches To review, our study reveals that what we know as Christian theology has resulted from the multisource platform— biblical ideas interpreted using the hermeneutical perspectives of human philosophy and science. It does not matter that Scripture speaks to the same issues addressed by these outside disciplines. In practice, when conflict arises between the two, philosophy and science are almost always trusted over Scripture (over against prima Scriptura).

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

435

This time-honored theological approach renders two complete theological approaches: the classical and the modern. Both achieve coherence by using extrabiblical hermeneutical principles, reducing the biblical content to a bare minimum of referential truth. Scripture instead serves more as a source of religious experience and ritual. On the other hand, conservative evangelical Christianity is divided by the unresolved conflicts between the historical Christ and the classical timeless view of God and the soul. Their emphasis on the cross pulls evangelical Christians to Scripture, while their view of God and human nature draw them in the other direction to classical Greek presuppositions. This issue is present not only in their model of revelation-inspiration, but in most doctrines as well.

2. A New Approach The historical-cognitive model demonstrates the needlessness of this divide. Presuppostions about reality can and should be drawn from biblical thinking. What we have done in this book is minimal compared with what a fullfledged criticism of the hermeneutical presuppositions of theology would look like. Here we have criticized traditional views of God and human nature; we might also critique presuppositions concerning being, cosmology, epistemology, and metaphysics. a. Ignoring the Hermeneutical Question Only those who claim that Christian theology should build on Scripture alone— based on the sola, tota, and prima Scriptura principles— would be interested in criticizing theology’s traditional reliance on philosophy. But most conservative evangelical and fundamentalist theologians have attempted to do theology from Scripture apart from philosophy— in other words, by ignoring philosophy. They have consciously or unconsciously avoided analyzing their own hermeneutical presuppositions. But burying their heads in the sand fails to exorcize the powerful hermeneutical effects of human philosophy on their Christian thinking and experience.

HOME PAGE 436

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Theology apart from philosophy probably can only take place in preaching and in the early stages of development of a community experience of faith. With the passage of time, however, questions arise as result of dialogue with unbelievers or from the simple desire to achieve a better understanding of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s will and the human condition. Such questions lead conservative theologians back to hermeneutical principles derived from philosophical thinking. This phenomenon becomes inescapable when members of the community of faith work within the scholarly world. When they enter that world, their biblical experience and theology are absorbed by the hermeneutical structures provided by philosophy. But modern and postmodern philosophical thinking has proven that the old classical synthesis was a result of human imagination not correspondent with the facts as we experience them in reality. b. Facing the Hermeneutical Question The historical-cognitive model suggests that Christian theology should approach all theological tasks with the same two steps it used to formulate its hermeneutical principles: deconstructing present understandings or presuppositions based on the earlier models, and rebuilding based solely on all the biblical material pertinent to the topic or arena. Such a study assumes the tota and sola Scriptura principles made possible by the historicalcognitive model of revelation-inspiration. Once the hermeneutical principles of theology have been formulated in faithfulness to Scripture, they may indeed be applied to all theological disciplines. Here, we will explore a few of the hermeneutical consequences the historical-cognitive model brings to exegetical and systematic theologies.

Â§115. RETHINKING BIBLICAL THEOLOGY For about sixteen centuries, Christian theologians approached the study of Scripture from the starting place of a systematic or dogmatic theology. Biblical theology challenged the reign of systematic theology when it became

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

437

an independent discipline around the middle of the eighteenth century.3 From the very beginning, biblical theology based its identity on criticizing dogmatic theology4 and on the historical-critical method of the Enlightenment. Please note that in this section, the term “biblical theology”is a technical term referring to that particular school of thought. The historical-cognitive model relates to biblical theology in two contrasting ways. On one hand, it shares its critical predisposition to classical theology; on the other, it is also critical of the hermeneutical foundations and procedures of historical criticism, defining aspects of biblical scholarship at the turn of the twentieth century.5 In other words, the historical-cognitive model finds “biblical theology” to be both biblical and unbiblical. The model agrees with biblical theology that classical theology takes flight and departs from the text of Scripture; on the other hand, the historicalcognitive model also finds biblical theology, as a school of thought, to be unbiblical in most of its presuppositions. Despite of its use of the historical-critical method, biblical theology has brought to the fore many important insights, light which can be used even by biblically-defined theological presuppositions. Hermeneutical presuppositions so defined, however, undermine the philosophical foundations of the historical-critical method. Practitioners of the method rarely speak about, much less submit to criticism, the hermeneutical presuppositions they assume in their practice. For example, the historical-critical method rejects the verbal inspiration of Scripture.6 Unfortunately, it also rejects the possibility of cognitive revelation. Divine activity within history is deemed impossible. The historical-critical method cannot operate without this assumption. The classical and evangelical models of revelation-inspiration are impotent to contradict these presuppositions; they, too, view God as timeless and unable to act in history. The only way they can find to counteract historical criticism is by interpreting inspiration as verbal— a notion also based on the timeless view of sovereign divine activity. As we have seen earlier, this approach does not incorporate the historical dimension of biblical thinking into theology. As a result, the historical-critical method still holds sway in Christian theology, in spite of criticism that continues to rise against it.

HOME PAGE 438

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

The historical-cognitive model challenges the assumption that God cannot act historically. Scripture presents God as temporal and historical, and therefore capable of acting and revealing his thought directly within the flux of human history. If the Bible is assumed to be right, one cannot affirm with absolute certainty, even from a scientific basis, that God cannot act in history as the pages of Scripture so report. One may doubt biblical teaching about God or even deny that there is a God, but no one can deny that Scripture presents the thoughts and words of a living God. Atheism is not a hermeneutical question, but a philosophical conviction one must bring to the text— a presupposition. For all practical purposes, to study Scripture with the historical-critical method is to study it from an atheistic perspective. The method can be applied either way— from atheism, or, without modification, from a timeless view of God. The only reason for assuming that God is involved at all is based on human tradition, and a philosophy that postmodern criticism has shown results from human imagination rather than from evidence.

1. Principles of the Historical-Critical Method German theologian Ernest Troeltsch articulated three principles for historical criticism: analogy, correlation, and doubt. Here I will attempt a brief introductory criticism of these critical principles from the general perspective of the historical-cognitive model. The principle of analogy is the conviction that present experience provides the criterion for judging the past. “Historians assume, consciously or unconsciously, that the past is analogous to the present, and that one human society is analogous to another.”7 For instance, since we never see anyone walking on water or rising from the dead, historical criticism dogmatically asserts that such events cannot occur at all. Scripture’s depiction of Jesus Christ doing those things is therefore discounted out of hand. But historical events are in their essence unique. A person following principle of analogy is prepared to accept only what reoccurs periodically, like the cyclical events of nature. The historical-critical method stands on naturalistic, positivistic assumptions that work reasonably well in studying

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

439

nature and the physical sciences. The same assumptions, however, are a notable hindrance in the study of history. If we apply the principle of analogy to the biblical record, we may consider the possibility that what is described there does not fit with certain preconceptions of reality we now have— but to conclude that the biblical depiction of divine activity is wrong, something else must be operating behind the principle of analogy— the hermeneutical principles on which historical criticism builds. The principle of analogy assumes the perspective of either atheistic/agnostic naturalism or the timelessness of God. Most theologians work primarily from the second assumption— the timelessness of God. Recently, however, an increasing number of biblical exegetes seem content to operate on purely naturalistic assumptions. They consider the text to be a human religious phenomenon and are convinced that God is a product of human imagination. Recently, Yale philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff successfully challenged the naturalistic assumptions of the historical-critical method. Arguing from an apologetical perspective and an empiricist epistemology congruent with the positivistic frame of mind of historical criticism, Wolterstorff concludes that divine speech as an historical phenomenon is possible in the present. He knows other scholars may analyze the same phenomenon and arrive at different ends. So, Wolterstorff nuances his argument and carefully concludes that “it is possible for an intelligent adult of the modern Western world to be entitled to believe that God has spoken to him or her.”8 This does not make the historical-critical method impossible, but hypothetical— only one possible way of interpreting Scripture. In other words, it opens the way for an alternate scholarly methodology with which to do biblical theology, one based on new macrohermeneutical presuppositions from which to apply the principle of analogy. The historical-cognitive model presents the presuppositions of such a methodology. Maxwell Miller is correct when he writes that, other than the principle of analogy, “there is no specific methodology for historical research.”9 The entire paradigm of historical criticism applies the principle of analogy to

HOME PAGE 440

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Scripture based on the naturalistic, atheistic, deistic or timeless definitions of divine activity (or non-activity). What this means is that all the “criticisms” of Scripture which historical-critical methodology presents depend on the presuppositions of the scholars who are applying the principle of analogy for validity. What should we do, then, with the other two principles of historical research enunciated by Troeltsch? The principle of correlation speaks to the tangled and ever-present web of historical causes: “For every effect within history . . . there are one or more immanent causes, which can be further explained through antecedent immanent causes and effects.”10 On the surface, this principle sounds simple and clear. No objections come to mind until one remembers that in Scripture we find God’s historical activities, and that according to tradition God is timeless. Within this setting, there can be no divine causation in history; therefore, God cannot be active in the closed chain of historical causality. It is my belief that the historical-critical method stands or falls on how one interprets historical and divine realities; in other words, how a person interprets the nature of God and the nature of history determines whether or not they believe a purely naturalistic approach to the Bible will work. The principle of correlation ties the other two historical-critical principles together, those of analogy and of doubt. It also provides the basis for practical procedures involved, such as source, form, tradition, redaction, social, canonical, rhetorical, structural, and narrative criticisms. The principle of correlation depends on seeing the world through Kantian eyes, that God does not actually enter history, but merely touches the timeless souls of people in non-cognitive encounters— Schleiermacher’s view (see Chapter 10). God cannot act within the closed continuum of historical causes because He is timeless. (Actually, Kant did deal with the problem of how a timeless cause acts in a temporal web of causes; that explanation is the real presupposition behind Troeltsch’s principles).11 The principle of analogy, like the principle of correlation, is reenforced by the assumption of divine timelessness. Centuries before Troeltsch, Christian theologians supported that principle by adopting such a view of God, which makes it impossible for God to act historically in history. The

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

441

real hermeneutical ground of the historical-critical method is not ultimately Troelsch’s principle of analogy, but the Platonic-Aristotelean understanding of the divine as timeless. This notion was still operative in the Hegelian philosophy and was the foundation of source and form criticisms, propounded by Wellhausen and Gunkel respectively. The principle of methodological doubt directs the historian to question Scripture’s historical accuracy. Under this principle, biblical history per se cannot be accepted as authentic without verification. Taken together, these three principles result in two outcomes when applied to the study of Scripture. First, Scripture’s contents are summarily evaluated and judged to be wrong. Cloaked under scientific respectability, this evaluation must be ingrained in researchers’ minds before they can begin their work. Second, Scripture’s account of history is being continually rewritten, resulting in a constantly evolving hypothetical reconstruction of Israelite and early Christian histories. This hypothetical reconstruction is assumed to be fact, the fact from which biblical thinking is judged. Those words, “biblical thinking,” themselves take on new meaning from such a perspective; it is only the historically conditioned fantasies of the biblical writers, rather than directly revealed information from God.

2. Deconstructing Historical-Critical Methodology The historical-cognitive model does not deny the web of historical causality, but the philosophical assumption that the web excludes God. As we have shown repeatedly, seeing history as closed to God is the result of Greek philosophy and subsequent tradition. Yet, other views are possible. Since the Bible clearly depicts God acting within the realm of history, the historical continuum is respected, not violated. God is Himself shown to be a historical agent who speaks and acts directly within the “closed historical continuum.” The historical-cognitive model necessitates the deconstruction of the historical-critical method. What this means is that all the procedures and sub-disciplines of historical criticism must themselves be criticized from the perspective of presuppositions and hermeneutical principles. The goal of this deconstruction is to take each objective and question of every historical-

HOME PAGE 442

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

critical procedure, and separate them from the presuppositions operative in their uses against what the Bible actually says. Once this task is accomplished, one could determine whether each procedure remains pertinent to the study of Scripture. Some procedures might still be useful, while others may be discarded. Those still valid might have to be redefined based on the new presuppositions of the historical-cognitive model. All this would ultimately result in a different method of Scriptural interpretation better tuned to historical and biblical thinking. Such a method would still be scientific, but one not considered to be an analogy to the scientific method nor beholden to classical, modern, or postmodern philosophical assumptions. Instead of referring to the necessary procedures as “criticisms” of Scripture, the new methodology would perhaps speak of “analysis.” For instance, the term “historical criticism” would give room to a different procedure possibly labeled “historical analysis.” Regardless of the terms, the hermeneutical effects of the historical-cognitive model demand the deconstruction, however difficult, of historical criticism.

§116. RETHINKING SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY The hermeneutical presuppositions of the historical-cognitive model of revelationinspiration have profound, overarching effects on systematic theology. The system of Christian theology revolves around the being and actions of God. Any change in our conception of God, however minute, will have considerable effects on the entire structure of Christian systematic theology. The historical-cognitive model demands such a change. The new model itself became possible precisely because of a modification of how we understand God. The modification does not stand on new philosophical ruminations, but on ancient biblical teaching. And the change is anything but minor. To move from a timeless to a historical God is a complete paradigm shift, giving us completely different eyes for seeing the truth about God’s nature. Throughout the entire history of Christian theology, I am not aware of any

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

443

attempt to develop systematic theology from within a historical matrix, with the exception of second-century theologian Irenaeus in Against Heresies. Since that time, systematic theology has evolved around the notion of a timeless God and consequently wandered far from biblical thinking. Not even the Protestant Reformation, with its emphasis on Scripture, was able to uncover and throw off its slavery to Greek philosophical presuppositions. In many ways Protestant congregations did come to think of God historically. But scholarly Protestant theology did not reflect the naivete of pastors and congregations. (That long-standing dichotomy between theologians and congregations is perhaps the best kept secret of conservative evangelicalism.) The notion of a historical God was relegated to movements that did not develop their theology from scholarly perspectives. As long as a Christian movement remained limited to the local congregation, historical, biblical thinking remained alive. As soon as movements faced complicated theological questions in a seminary or university setting, the historical approach to Christian theology was eventually replaced by philosophically-originated assumptions of God as timeless. The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration is the first step for expressing in scholarly terms the naive, historical understanding of local congregations who take Scripture at face value. The reinterpretation of systematic theology as a whole is another theological job unleashed by the model. Here, we can only point to the task. A full exploration of its consequences will have to wait for other books. Let me just say that the application of the biblical notion of a historical God as the macrohermeneutical presupposition for the entire realm of Christian theology will result in a biblical process theology quite different in content to current models of so-called process theology. The latter is a modernistic, scientific adaptation of Neo-Platonic macrohermeneutical ideas, the former is an application of biblical macrohermeneutical principles to Scripture and to the entire scope of Christian doctrine. The development of a biblical process theology is still to be accomplished. As you can see, the hermeneutical effects of the historical-cognitive model are deep and comprehensive. I hope the examples presented in this chapter have enticed your theological curiosity and confirmed your confidence in the

HOME PAGE 444

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

God of Scripture. Our final chapter will deal with the question of Scripture’s trustworthiness.

§117. REVIEW • The two-way relationship between revelation-inspiration and hermeneutics. On one hand, our presuppositions influence our understanding of revelation-inspiration; on the other, our understanding of revelationinspiration influences our hermeneutics. • The historical cognitive model of revelation-inspiration reclaims Scripture as revealed source of theology. By going beyond current models, the historical-cognitive model reclaims Scripture as the cognitive and historically incarnated revelation of God’s actions and thinking. The Bible thereby becomes the only source of revealed data for Christian theology. • Affirming the tota Scriptura principle. Since the historical-cognitive model reclaims the entire text of Scripture as a revelation of divine actions and thinking, it affirms the concept of tota Scriptura. This means that in order to understand God, we need all the biblical writings, not just some selected portions of it. Each verse or section reveals one aspect of God and His relationship to His creation. • Rejecting “canon within the canon” hermeneutics. By understanding revelation-inspiration as the historical incarnation of divine actions and thinking, the historical-cognitive model affirms that all of Scripture is necessary for Christian religion and theology. Simultaneously, it disavows all attempts to approach Scripture from a “canon within a canon” interpretive strategy. By affirming that the whole of Scripture is revealed and inspired, the historical-cognitive model sets

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

445

the stage for another Reformation. • The historical conditionality of Scripture in the classical and modern models. To understand what proponents of other models mean by “historically conditioned,” we have to think of the two agencies involved in the revelation-inspiration event. In this process, God’s action is understood as the “cause” of Scripture; what human agencies did is its “condition.” • For Scripture, the historical cognitive model replaces “historical conditionality” with “historical constitution.” The historical-cognitive model proposes that the contribution of the human agency is an internal condition to the formation of the “eternal truths” of Scripture, not an external one. To be historically constituted means that the historical component of the text belongs to the divine truth itself and cannot be considered peripheral in our search for theological reality.

• Rejecting the Wesleyan quadrilateral of theological sources. By affirming the sola Scriptura principle, the historical-cognitive model rejects the traditional multisource platform of theological sources often known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral— the Bible, tradition, reason, and experience. Such a multisource platform assumes natural revelation, or the assumption that each source serves as a conduit of divine revelation. • Affirming the sola Scriptura principle. Only in Scripture do we find revealed, divine thoughts as incarnated through the ministry of prophets and apostles. Reason, science, philosophy, and experience render only human points of view and conflicting interpretations. Consequently, they cannot be considered to be sources of theological data.

HOME PAGE 446

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

• Affirming the prima Scriptura principle. Prima Scriptura means that Scripture holds cognitive primacy over all resources theologians may use in their work. More specifically, how theologians understand biblical ideas by means of the tota and sola Scriptura principles allows them to place all human resources under the judgment of biblical revelation. From that perspective, resources are selected, analyzed, and, if necessary, recontextualized for theological use. • The biblical reconstruction of theological hermeneutics. Theological hermeneutics must be rebuilt for the following reasons. First, the hermeneutical principles operative throughout Christian theology right now are dictated by the structure and conclusions of human philosophy and science. Second, Scripture assumes different hermeneutical principles. These two understandings contradict each other not only in origin, but in content. One proceeds from God and the other from human wisdom. One considers divine reality to be timeless, the other temporal and historical.

• Building theological hermeneutics from scripture. To begin building Scriptural hermeneutics, one must begin by deconstructing the hermeneutical presuppositions present in the classical, modern, and evangelical systems of theology. A subsequent study of hermeneutical foundations should search for the biblical presuppositions required for doing theology. • Deconstructing the historical-critical method. Applying the historical-cognitive model requires the deconstruction of the historical-critical method. This means that all its procedures, including all the various subdisciplines within higher criticism, must themselves be hermeneutically criticized. This criticism should separate the objectives and questions each procedure deals with from the hermeneutical

HOME PAGE HERMENEUTICAL EFFECTS

447

presuppositions currently driving the historical criticism of what the Bible says. â&#x20AC;˘ Theological outcome of the historical-cognitive model: A biblical process theology. The application of the biblical concept of an historical God as the driving presupposition for the entire realm of Christian theology will result in a biblical process theology, but one quite different in content to current models of what is currently known as process theology. The latter is a modernistic, scientific adaptation of Greek philosophical presuppositions, while the former is an application of biblical hermeneutical principles to Scripture and to the entire scope of Christian doctrine. The development of a biblical process theology has yet to be accomplished.

ENDNOTES 1

The historical-critical method can be used for non-theological purposes as well. In other words, it can be applied to the Bible if one considers Scripture to be a purely human description of religious experience. The difference between the theological and religious application of the historical-critical method does not affect the methodology nor its results, but the area where the scholar applies it. Scholarly research of religions as human phenomena do not need to connect the text to God. Conversely, the work of a theologian requires a connection between the text and God; otherwise they would have no justification for using biblical literature in their writings. 2

Oscar Cullmann has shown that Scripture does not tie eternity to timelessness, but to time. See Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, rev. ed., trans. Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964).

HOME PAGE 448

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Gerhard Ebeling, Word and Faith, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963), 87; Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 18. 4

Ebeling, 88-91.

I use the designation “historical-critical method” to cover a whole paradigm of procedures including historical, source, form, tradition, redaction, social, canonical, rhetorical, structural, and narrative criticisms. A good introduction to historical method and its critical procedures is To Each Own Their Own Meaning by S. Mckenzie and S. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999). 6

Ibid., 89.

J. Maxwell Miller, “Reading the Bible Historically: The Historian’s Approach,” in To Each its Own Meaning: Biblical Criticisms and their Application, ed. S. L. McKenzie and S. R. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 18. 8

Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 280. 9

Miller, “Reading the Bible Historically: The Historian’s Approach,”, 20.

Jerry Gladson, “Taming Historical Criticsm: Adventist Biblical Scholarship in the Land of the Giants,” Spectrum, 25 (1988): 21. 11

See Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1990), 302-304. If you have a different version, look under “Antinomy of Pure Reason” for the section on “The Possibility of Freedom in Harmony with the Universal Law of Natural Necessity.” See also Fernando Luis Canale, A Criticism of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 10 (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1983), 239 n. 1.

HOME PAGE

20. THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

ยง118 INTRODUCTION Great is the debate about the veracity of Scripture taking place here at the beginning of the twenty-first century. For centuries Christian theologians considered the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. As we have studied in Chapter 10, this classical belief came under assault with the advent of modernity. Modern philosophical presuppositions and historical criticism led many Christian theologians to the conclusion that Scripture was composed of merely human documents. In turn, many conservative denominations reacted by affirming the inerrancy of Scripture over the last hundred years. They justifiably understood this to be an issue of paramount importance. After all, if the Bible was a human book and thus subject to error, as modern theologians claimed, the fundamentalist view of Christianity was also subject to error. Mistakes and inaccuracies in Scripture, according to modernist theologians, included not only matters of details but even theological teachings. Evangelical conservative theologians could have taken the opportunity to criticize the philosophical grounds of modernism, but instead affirmed the inerrancy of the entire Bible apologetically and theologically using the verbal model of revelationinspiration (see Chapter 11). According to the Chicago statement made by the

HOME PAGE 450

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

1978 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy summit in Chicago, inerrancy means that Scripture is “infallible,”“free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit,”and is internally consistent; this assertion covers all matters on which the biblical authors spoke or wrote, not just theological or spiritual themes.1 The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration, as presented in this book, faces all the issues over which the previous three models struggle. But the historical-cognitive model begins from a different perspective. While scholars of the modern and fundamentalist schools both build their understanding of revelation-inspiration by assuming either the fallibility or inerrancy of Scripture, those of the historical-cognitive model sidestep that controversy. Only after we have come to a particular view of how the Bible came to be can we accurately determine its reliability and truthfulness. This is where we find ourselves here in the last chapter. So, now we will consider the reliability of Scripture from the perspective of the historical-cognitive model we have developed in this book. We have already implicitly affirmed that the Bible is true when we looked at the hermeneutical consequences of the model (§113). Now, we must explore its implications for the veracity of Scripture. We will start by considering first the idea of truth in general, then of Scripture in particular. From there we will introduce ourselves to the task of verifying Scriptural truth and to some necessary theoretical considerations concerning error, detail and accuracy. Finally, we will deal with concrete challenges leveled against Scripture’s reliability, and conclude by outlining the “historically comprehensive” view of biblical reliability.

§119 THE IDEA OF TRUTH To speak about the truthfulness of Scripture with any degree of precision requires us to explore the concept of truth. There are at least three relevant levels or senses in which we use the word “truth.” They are truth as correspondence, truth as coherence, and truth as disclosure.2 Plato and Aristotle made use of the concept of truth as correspondence. According to this view, we say a statement is true when it corresponds to the

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

451

reality it supposedly describes. For instance, if my wife tells me, “It’s snowing,” I expect to see snowflakes falling when I look through the window; if they are, the statement is true. If no snow is falling, my wife’s statement is false. Hegel, together with several others, considered truth by the criterion of coherence. In this view, we say that a statement or idea is true when it coheres without contradiction to the whole of the statement or reality it describes. For instance, it is untruthful for you or me to say, “A triangle has four angles.” Since the word “triangle” itself means “three angles,” the statement expresses a contradiction and therefore cannot be considered coherent, that is, true. To understand truth as coherence, let us compare the statement on triangles with the statement about the weather. To determine the truth of my wife’s statement about the outdoor precipitation, I need to do some exploring outside the statement; I have to look out the window for snowflakes. To see whether the statement on triangles is true, however, I do not need to go outside the statement to count the angles on something triangular. I need only to analyze the logic of the statement itself. If it contains a contradiction, the statement is false; we know it does not describe properly what it intends. Of course, any discovery of an inconsistency in the second statement depends on prior knowledge of triangles and their definition. Truth as coherence refers to our analysis of any given statement; for the statement to be true, it cannot contain inner contradictions. If we find no contradiction, we say the statement is true. To briefly review, then, truth as correspondence requires that we compare a particular statement with its referent or referents outside the statement in real life. Truth as coherence requires that we compare components of the statement to determine that there are no contradictions or inconsistencies among their contents and definitions. Finally, we reach the idea of truth as disclosure, in the work of Heidegger and others. Heidegger emphasized this definition by using the Greek word for truth, “al?theia.” Al?theia implies the uncloaking, discovery or revelation of something previously hidden; it takes place when something real appears or presents itself to us. Truth, in this sense, means revealing or uncovering. In our examples, reality realities of snowflakes and the triangles reveal themselves to our awareness. The

HOME PAGE 452

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

revealed realities of the snowflakes and of the triangle are the real origin or foundation of truth as correspondence and coherence. Let us review the three levels in which we can speak of truth. As correspondence, truth occurs when a statement and its referent are found to match. On this level a statement is true when what it says agrees with the reality or event to which it refers. As coherence, truth is the property of inner consistency between all parts of a statement. On this level a statement is true when all parts of a statement agree together. As disclosure, truth exists when reality reveals itself without distortion. On this level a statement is found to be true when it lets reality speak for itself. Truth as disclosure is the foundation of truth as correspondence and consistency.

§120 TRUTH IN SCRIPTURE: MANY AND ALL As we consider the truth of Scripture, we must specify in what sense Scripture is truth. While some philosophers emphasize one of the levels of truth above the others, we will consider them to be complementary sides or components of what we call truth. Consequently, all of them apply to Scripture. Because truth as disclosure grounds the other two levels, we will begin there. Truth as disclosure consists in the “uncovering” or “coming to light” of what is real; it corresponds to what we have described in this book as revelation. In biblical revelation, God shows Himself to us in many ways. These many ways have given rise to the different patterns of revelation-inspiration we considered in Chapter 17. By definition, then, all of them are true because they disclose, present, or uncover God to us. Some theologians, following the classical and evangelical models of revelation-inspiration, attempt to simplify the question about Scripture’s reliability by reducing that truth to its “theological”referent, that is, to God alone and outside of human history. In this view, only what Scripture says about God is true, the rest can be in error. This position is known as limited inerrancy.3 In contrast, the historical-cognitive model asserts that all the Bible is true at the revelatory level. In other words, all that God reveals in Scripture is true

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

453

precisely because it proceeds from Him. The model also implies that the reception and interpretation of revelatory patterns by biblical authors form part of God’s written revelation to us. Thus, what the Bible writers put down corresponds accurately to what God revealed— the correspondence level of truth. As the writers worked together, all inspired by God, they produced a consistent picture of divine revelation, just as we would expect— truth as coherence. In sum, truth as disclosure, or revelation, grounds through inspiration truth as correspondence and coherence. But both the patterns of revelation and the contents of Scripture describe a great diversity of realities besides God— because the God who reveals Himself in the Bible is by nature historical and temporal. Because Scripture depicts God as interacting directly with His creation, what He reveals goes beyond His own being and His eternal will as classical theology would have us believe. God’s revelation regarding the history of salvation is not limited to the life and death of Jesus Christ, or to the restricted realm of timeless acts of God (realm of the “Spirit”) within which the classical Christian theology works. In the Old and New Testaments God shows Himself to us in many ways, within many historical referents. The sheer diversity and variety of historical referents make the issue of Biblical veracity very complex. We should expect to find that truth in Scripture is all inclusive because it includes all levels of truth, and has many facets due to its surprising variety of referents.

§121 VERIFYING TRUTH IN SCRIPTURE The issue of verifying the Bible raises many complex questions. Can we speak of biblical truth without verification? How do we know Scripture is right if we do not verify what it says? Do we find that biblical truths are self-authenticated in our souls by the inner work of the Holy Spirit, or do we need to verify them as we verify other truths? Are they verifiable at all? How does verification relate to the claim we just made that Bible truth is all-inclusive? Paul seems to recommend that we check on the truth of the Bible when he tells

HOME PAGE 454

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

us to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is— his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans 12:2, NIV [emphasis supplied]). In other words, we can verify what God tells us about life by comparing it with our everyday experience. Paul implies that we can compare what God wants for our lives, as revealed in Scripture, to what actually occurs in our experience— that we can verify revelation directly. But the Bible has many referents besides our everyday lives; moreover, Paul’s affirmation that “the Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children" (Romans 8:16, NIV) does not mean we do not have to verify biblical truth in other arenas. How much verification is necessary depends on both the needs of individual believers and the intellectual climate of a given age. In the present time, in which the scientific method is part of the fabric of the culture, we can hardly help but try to verify the Bible. What exactly we verify also depends on how we interpret biblical revelation in the first place. In other words, this, too, returns to presuppositions, but this time concerning what exactly the Bible is saying about a given referent, which depends on our overall understanding of Scripture and of doctrine. Let us consider the task of verifying biblical truth at each level we mentioned above.

1. Verifying Divine Disclosures In Scripture God tells us about Himself and the world in many ways. Among them we find theophanies, prophecy, providence, miracles, teachings, and Jesus’s incarnation. Genesis presents God as the Creator of the world. How can we figure out if this is true? Whether we find it true or false depends primarily on how we interpret the nature and existence of God, the texts in question, and the verification process itself. In the present age we understand verification in the context of science. Thus, we have “scientific” knowledge when something has been observed firsthand and recorded. On the basis of science many theologians, including conservative evangelical ones, are convinced that what the Bible describes in Genesis 1-2 is wrong. How do they reach such a conclusion? Have they gone back in time to

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

455

watch the world’s birth and proven Genesis wrong? Obviously not; they instead weighed the Genesis account against their conviction that the theory of evolution is true. It is appropriate to ask if this is a valid method of verifying any biblical teaching. Notice that both Paul’s statement on verifying the Bible discussed above and modern science agree that verification is checking a statement with its referent. The problem in the case of creation is that the referent cannot be checked because it is a past event which no human was alive to observe, and moreover was a unique event in the history of the universe— what science terms a singularity. The same is true, however, of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution is not based on the scientific method because that method can only be applied to repeatable events. Neither creation nor evolution can be studied through the scientific method. The theory of evolution is a broad hypothetical construct that explains some of the scientific data discovered in the last one hundred and fifty years. Evolution is not an empirical fact but a hypothesis. Besides, due to disciplinary constrains, scientific explanations cannot recognize the existence of God. Only that which is verifiable through repetitive experimentation can be declared “scientific.”Science has a right to develop its own theories, using its own methodology. But science must acknowledge its own limitations. A theory about unverifiable or unrepeatable events, which considers some but not all of the facts, and excludes God from the equation, cannot be considered adequate to prove a biblical account false. At the present time, both biblical creation and evolution remain unverified theories. A person cannot use one to verify the other or prove it false; both hypotheses depend on an a priori commitment of faith. Attempts to verify other patterns of divine revelation face the same difficulty. We cannot verify miracles, providential interventions, and prophecies because we have no access to their referents. Since these are disclosures of God’s being, will, thought and acts, their referents are inaccessible past or future revelatory events, or even God himself whom we cannot scientifically access at the present time. Many doctrines of Scripture belong to this level and stand beyond verification or falsification. They are accepted or rejected on faith based on the verification of other truths. For the most part, what we cannot verify in Scripture, we accept

HOME PAGE 456

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

because of what we can verify— specifically, experiencing God’s will through obedience. To prove revelations false beyond the level of experience, one has to submit to alternate explanations produced by science, philosophy, myth or popular culture. It becomes a matter of whom we accept as our authority; whom will we trust? Challenges to biblical teachings most often come from philosophical, scientific and cultural perspectives opposed to what has come to us through divine revelation. The conflict is always one of interpretation. To answer these perspectives, we must develop biblical apologetics as a theological discipline.

2. Verifying Truth as Correspondence In the process of revealing Himself, God produced a rich variety of historical events vividly reported in Scripture. Any casual reading of the Bible will bring us an awareness of its great number of historical and geographical referents. Here archaeology plays a pivotal role in biblical verification, even though its role as historical science means that it cannot produce absolutely certain conclusions, but only higher or lower degrees of probability4— something we must keep in mind. Christianity’s central truth is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; it is a series of historical events which should be verified through historical methodology. As in the case with our hypothetical investigation of the Genesis creation account, most of the referents described in the gospels are not available for checking. Thus, historical science can only produce tentative results in this case. Moreover, just as in the creation-evolution debate, some scholars who study the life of Christ believe in God, while others do not. The result is that believers take the weight of the textual evidence, compare it with what is known of firstcentury Palestinian culture and history, and assert that Jesus’ resurrection probably happened; unbelievers maintain that it did not because people just don’t rise from the dead. As we discussed in the previous chapter, biblical studies are currently dominated by the historical-critical method. Since they assume that any hypothetical God would be unable to act in history, the method’s practitioners

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

457

reconstruct the “real” history of Israel and the “real” historical Jesus— leaving behind what is recorded in the Bible as simply wrong. Their arguments are many, complex, hypothetical, concrete and imaginative; as they cannot accept the miraculous as scientific, they look for other ways of interpreting the data, ways more “scientifically accurate.” Yet, when implicitly or explicitly these scholars claim their studies to be “true,” they go beyond science into religious faith. Their hypothetical reconstructions are only that— reconstructions. Because the Bible contains so many historical and geographical referents, the task of verifying each and every one of them is beyond the finite reach of any single human being. Besides, the task itself begins with an interpretation of the biblical text and historical evidence. Consequently, archaeological and historical studies may produce conclusions in conflict with the Bible. The extent to which interpretation plays a role in verification will become clearer as we deal with some challenges to Scripture’s reliability below. In Scripture, as everywhere else, truth as correspondence consists in the agreement between statements and their referents. Challenges to the Bible’s reliability at this level come from the disciplines that study these referents: archaeology, history, natural science and the historical-critical method of interpretation. To answer these challenges we need to respect the nature and intent of any given biblical passage we wish to examine, maintain an awareness of the limitations of scientific investigation, and of the hypothetical nature of any constructs verifying or proving false biblical statements, and challenge presuppositions that lead to interpretations which present the Bible as wrong.

3. The Truth of Scripture’s Inner Coherence If God is the source of Scripture, as the historical cognitive model maintains, any truth we find there ought to be consistent with itself— as the view of truth as coherence would expect. In this arena, theological presuppositions again play

HOME PAGE 458

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

decisive roles in the task of verifying or proving false the truths of Scripture. What we assume to be the nature of biblical truth affects how we verify that truth. Under Plato’s influence, Augustine conceived of Christianity’s truth as spiritual, or belonging to the timeless rather than the spatiotemporal level of reality. On this basis, Luther strongly argued for the spiritual unity of the Bible, unity revolving around the gospel— which Luther understood to be the experience of justification by faith.5 Augustine and Luther saw the coherence of Scripture to be an inner, spiritual coherence; they could thereby leave out many ideas, teachings and doctrines that could be considered contradictory or wrong without effecting the inner, spiritual core. This approach is a systematic one, with which many Bible scholars might find themselves agreeing. The trouble is that it does not account for all the doctrinal variety in Scripture. Proponents of this view cannot account for such diversity because they are looking for spiritual truth rather than historically constituted truth; while they affirm the coherence of the idea of justification by faith in the Bible, they must deny the coherence of the rest of Scripture’s teachings.6 The historical-cognitive model solves this problem by replacing the PlatonicAugustinian-Thomistic view of God and truth as ultimately timeless (see Chapter 13) with a view that God and truth are completely compatible with our space and time. The truths God gives us are historical, not confined to the realm of the “soul.”The subject matter of the Bible is still “spiritual” in the sense that it refers to God’s activities, but it is not “spiritual”in the sense of referring to timelessness. In other words, the Bible depicts a real God involved in real life. Its subject matter is the historical process through which God puts into effect His eternal plan of salvation made real in human lives, not just the “inner life” of the soul.7 Bible truth should be interpreted and its inner coherence evaluated from within a historical understanding of reality. When applied to the Bible, truth as coherence asks whether an inner systematic unity of biblical teachings exists. At this level, challenges to Scriptural reliability do not come from other disciplines as with the level of truth of correspondence, but from theological and exegetical interpretations. These challenges may be answered from a systematic theology developed from the Bible with biblical presuppositions.

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

459

§122 CHALLENGES TO SCRIPTURE’S RELIABILITY: THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS Let us explain more precisely what consequences the historical-cognitive model has on the accuracy and truthfulness of Scripture. What exactly are the challenges to Scripture’s veracity? To answer that question, we must look at some introductory theoretical considerations. Following that, we will look at some concrete examples of the challenges to the Bible’s accuracy which the current debate presents to scholars and laypeople alike.

1. Errors Here is the bottom line: does Scripture contain errors? Some claim the Bible is inerrant; others claim that it contains all kinds of errors. This debate is insoluble until we define the word “error.” Clarity on that issue will allow us to determine whether the word refers to biblical phenomena. This especially is very important for pastors and other believers who have to deal with these issues not in the comfort of academia, but on the battlefield of everyday life. The dictionary recognizes several shades of meaning for “error.” Among them we find: (1) deviation from truth or accuracy, (2) false belief, and (3) failure to conform to a standard or guide. Even when in our discussion “error”is connected with “truth” we need to bear in mind that their antonyms reveal that they are incommensurable. The opposite of “error” is “correctness,” or “accuracy.” The opposite of “truth” is “lie” or “false.” We use the word “error”in many senses and contexts. The two senses in which the word might possibly apply to Scripture are (1) lack of accuracy, and, (2) lying or intentional deception. In Scripture truth and lies are set as opposites (Psalm 52:3; Romans 1:25; 1 John 1:6; 2:21). Paul emphatically affirms that he is telling the truth, not inventing or imagining things to deceive naive believers (Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 11:31; 1 Timothy 2:7). From the perspective of the historical-cognitive model, we cannot use the word “error” to refer to a lack of theological accuracy, but rather only if

HOME PAGE 460

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

we become convinced that Scripture is intentionally deceiving us. Since I do not think that this is the case, I will not use the word error in reference to Scripture. I advise my readers to do the same. In other words, for our discussion, the word error when applied to Scripture means a departure from truth, lies, and falsehood which extend to the content of its teachings (on creation, salvation, eschatology and so forth). According to the historical-cognitive model, issues related to accuracy (such as numbers, quotations, and minor details in recording historical events) cannot be described as errors because they are not intended to deceive Bible readers in any sense.

2. Biblical Reliability Before assessing the Bible’s overall reliability, or reacting to evaluations other theologians have made, we need to remind ourselves of two major points. First, any assessment of Scripture’s reliability assumes an interpretation of it; and, second, each model of revelation-inspiration works within different hermeneutical and methodological parameters and presuppositions; in other words, each assumes a different theological system. Thus, evaluations of Scripture’s reliability are bound to vary according to the hermeneutical, methodological and theological positions of the evaluator. With these points in mind, let us explore the consequences of the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration for biblical reliability. The historical-cognitive model clearly affirms the reliability of Scripture at the level of coherence and disclosure. These affirmations are made possible by the sweeping changes in methodology and hermeneutical procedures with which we began our work on this model . At the methodological level, the tradition of using multiple sources for doing theology (prima Scriptura) is replaced by Scripture as the only source of divine revelation for theological purposes (sola Scriptura) (see Chapter 2). In so doing, the historical-cognitive model refuses to judge Scripture by way of ever-changing philosophical, scientific and cultural interpretations of nature, history and society. Instead, the historical-cognitive model assumes that Scripture reliably conveys divine revelation to us. Since we take what it tells us at

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

461

face value, we are able to see the Bible’s truth as temporal (§66-§69) rather than timeless (§29). This change provides the primordial base for a new way of interpreting Scripture. Divine actions and thought can be seen as historical, as the Bible depicts them. If we can understand Scripture’s truth historically, we are able to see the inner consistency of its theology. At that point we have confirmed the truth of Scripture at the coherence level. Once coherence is in place, we can pursue verification of the disclosure level, by checking the truthfulness of biblical thinking, worldview, and doctrines against their practical results in everyday life (see Romans 12:2). To harmonize with the level of coherence, verification depends on understanding God’s redemptive activities as historical. The result would be a new systematic theology. At this point we could fairly say that Scripture’s truthfulness is verified at the levels of coherence and of disclosure. It is at the level of correspondence that the historical-cognitive model has to face the dilemma of the modernist affirmation that Scripture contains all sorts of errors versus the conservative evangelical affirmation that Scripture contains no error whatsoever. Here we examine the issue of the facts compared with what the Bible describes. Broadly speaking, the historical-cognitive model claims that there are no intentionally misleading factual errors in Scripture, yet due to the limitations and imperfections of human knowledge (§70-§72), Scripture’s phenomena do reveal imperfections, or lack of one hundred percent accuracy. These imperfections take place at the level of minor detail and actually enhance rather than distort biblical truth. Below we will look at concrete examples of what modernist theology calls “errors,”inerrantist theology calls “absolutely accurate truths at every level,”and the historical-cognitive model calls “lack of accuracy.”

3. What is a Detail? “The devil is in the details,”so the saying goes. Many of the “errors”of Scripture belong to what both sides consider details.8 Paul J. Achtemeier remarks that “the

HOME PAGE 462

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

debate about and defense of inerrancy, with its endless attempts to reconcile what at best are peripheral details, diverts attention from the central themes of Scripture.”9 Yet for Achtemeier the deluge of Genesis 6-9 is a “detail.”10 If a worldwide catastrophe which the rest of the Bible marks as a major event is a detail, one cannot help but ask what else is. Even in less dramatic examples, we are left to determine what a detail is versus what a central theme is. Let us say that a detail is a small, subordinate, nonessential part of a thing, event, statement’s, whole or subject matter. A detail is subordinate because, like a parasite, exists within something else. We know something is a detail because if we delete it, the meaning of the subject matter or reality to which it is attached is not modified. Whether or not a particular aspect of the text is a detail or not depends on how it affects the theme or issue which the larger passage is putting into words. How can Achtemeier determine that the universal flood is a theological detail? The answer in all likelihood will be found within his own theology. Though I do not know Achtemeier’s preferred model, I dare to guess he might be thinking from an Augustinian-Lutheran perspective.11 To review, in this system truth belongs to the spiritual realm, where God operates on the soul in the act of justification by faith. Since this is considered to be the one subject matter or central theme of theology, anything else is a detail by default. Within this framework, the creation in six days and the flood would qualify as such a detail. Rejecting the historical reality of creation and the flood does not alter the truth, central theme, or message of the Augustinian-Lutheran theological system. Because inerrantist evangelical theologians, such as Wayne Grudem, work with this same theological system, they identify “detail” with concrete historical events, including the creation of the world, the specifications of the sanctuary ritual in the Pentateuch, and the fact that Balaam’s donkey spoke.12 Modernists and inerrantists tend to agree in calling historical events “details.”13 The historical-cognitive model defines detail differently because it radically departs from the Augustinian-Lutheran theological system, stating that the entire Bible, not just the life and death of Jesus Christ, is a result of divine action and thought within history (see Chapter 16). What Grudem and Achtemeier consider

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

463

historical details, the historical-cognitive model considers subject matter for theology. Consequently, a detail is an aspect of divine revelation which the biblical writers communicated imperfectly due to their limitations. To identify a detail, one has to understand the entire theological context of Scripture, interpreted from the temporal-historical basis on which the historical cognitive model was built. In this context, an example of a detail would be the number of Israelites who left Egypt during the Exodus. While there is certainly a debate on the accuracy of the figures,14 for the sake of the example, let us concede that the numbers in Scripture could be inflated. Would such a concession affect the truth presented in the text? I do not think so. If the precise number does not affect the truths about God and His historical acts for His people, we may classify the tribal numbers as a detail.

4. Imprecisions in Historical Detail Should this concession be labeled error? I do not think so; the narrative is not intentionally deceiving us, nor does a lower number affect the historical truths depicted in the books of Moses. The report was not written to inform us about the number of people that came out of Egypt. Those figures are background information underscoring the extent of God’s liberating actions. In this case, lack of precision in the number neither deceives us nor distorts the description of historical events; what we find here is not an “error” but a lack of precision in a matter of detail to be expected in historical accounts. Let us pause for a moment to consider the idea of accuracy. Perfect accuracy does not exist even in mathematics. The famous ancient mathematician Pythagorus was dismayed to discover there were some numbers, such as the square root of two or the number p (which is used to describe circles), that could not be expressed either with decimal integers or fractions. We know these "irrational numbers" exist (or, at least, we theologians accept on faith that mathematicians know they exist!), because they have been used in successful calculations for centuries. But it is impossible to express them with 100 percent accuracy using numbers most of us can understand; the most we can expect are approximations.

HOME PAGE 464

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Less abstractly, are we ever going to know the number of deaths resulting from the tsunami of 2004? Certainly not; we have only approximations. God might speak to someone and reveal the number, but we could not verify it. That is the nature of historical accounts of any kind. When reading Scripture we should not expect to find perfect accuracy. The imperfections and inaccuracies we do find there serve us as evidences of its historicity. Each case has to be examined within its concrete theological and historical context, so we cannot say that as a rule in Scripture all numbers are details. When it comes to the days of creation or certain time prophecies, numbers belong to the subject matter of truth being revealed. In those cases, inconsistencies would be errors.

5. How Slippery is the Slippery Slope? Let us return to our example about the number of persons in the Israelite exodus. Will a concession that the number might be inflated trigger the feared “slippery slope”?15 In other words, would such recognition be grounds for placing all of Scripture under suspicion? I hardly think so. Such reasoning merely provides the intellectual pretext for rejecting God’s word, a decision often already made based on either a lack of understanding or willful decision. Do we need to “prove” every point of contention on historical accuracy of Scripture to maintain our faith in it? Of course not, and the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration helps us to understand why not. God’s work of salvation takes place over history, as the Bible shows us. The book had to be understood and communicated by historical instruments to preserve its truthfulness and effectiveness. When God chose to reveal himself in the limited and imprecise modes of human knowledge, he allowed the knowledge there to suffer the lack of historical accuracy unavoidable in any genuine historical discourse. Imprecisions at the level of detail demonstrate that Scripture was historically conceived and that it communicates the revelation of a God who acts in history. Divine inspiration did not elevate any Bible writer’s cognition, overrule his limitations or provide him with absolutely precise detailed historical and natural information. Why? Perhaps because it is essential to our

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

465

salvation that we understand God and his revelation Historically. As we will see in our next section, imprecisions extend not only to numbers but to the record of historical events as well.

§123 CHALLENGES TO SCRIPTURE’S RELIABILITY: TYPES AND EXAMPLES In this section we will consider some of the challenges to Scripture’s truthfulness and accuracy at the center of the controversy over inerrancy. Here we will see that our presuppositions determine our perception of what an error in Scripture is, and what effects the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration has on concrete cases of recognized errors. These examples will serve as cases to show how the historical-cognitive model relates to the debate, not as an attempt in this book to answer the questions there. Please be aware that theologians have strong feelings on both sides of the controversy. First, we will use examples of alleged biblical errancy from Achtemeier’s book on inspiration.16 His presentation suits our purposes because he discusses the errors in the same revelation-inspiration context that we are studying. Be aware as we continue that Achtemeier uses his affirmation of the presence of error in the Bible to suggest that divine inspiration does not work on individual authors but on the community of faith. He thus endorses the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation and its evolutionary approach to religious history— the modern model. Finally, we need to understand that Achtemeier defines error from the same perspective as an inerrantist. Keep in mind that the modern and evangelical schools both assume that reality is timeless and that the teachings of the Bible are relatively few compared with the size of the literary material; the historical-cognitive model begins from a different perspective and thus defines error much differently.

1. Errors in Natural Science Acthemeier affirms Scripture contains biological and botanical errors because it

HOME PAGE 466

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

says the rabbit chews (Leviticus 11:6),17 and the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Mark 4:31).18 This is surprising because Achtemeier himself recognizes Scripture does not approach reality from a scientific but from a commonsense point of view.19 Only by requiring these texts to be conformed to the Enlightenment ideal of absolute scientific precision could one consider them errors. Even if Achtemeier is right, the historical-cognitive model would view these examples as minor details, because their deletion would leave the message of the texts untouched. Consequently, one could choose to see them as examples of imprecision characteristic of the limited and imperfect mode of human knowledge, conversation and writing; God’s truth is incarnated in them nonetheless.

2. Wrong Attributions Another instance of supposed scriptural error takes place when a New Testament author attributes verses from the Old Testament to the wrong Old Testament book. For example, Matthew 27:9-10 references Zechariah 11:12-13, but mistakenly attributes the passage to Jeremiah. Likewise, Mark 1:2 quotes words from Isaiah that actually belong to Malachi 3:1.20 Regarding Matthew’s quotation, semi-inerrantist Samuel Koranteng-Pipim recognizes three possible explanations. (1) It might be an error introduced in the transmission process, whereas the original scroll the former tax collector wrote rightly cited Zechariah. (2) Matthew might have used the cultural convention of giving credit to the most prestigious author of a group. Since Jeremiah was more renowned among the prophets than Zechariah, Matthew recognized him as the author. (3) Matthew quotes from both Jeremiah and Zechariah.21 Pipim prefers the third answer. From Pipim’s arguments it becomes clear that there is no single answer for this obvious problem. All answers are hypothetical and have only relative degrees of certainty. The first option depends directly on the evangelical model’s conviction that only the lost originals were inerrant. Achtemeier and others sharing modern hermeneutical presuppositions probably will not be convinced by Pipim’s attempts at negating what they see as obvious. Moreover, Achtemeier argues convincingly

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

467

that recourse to lost originals is a cop-out.22 Then again, Pipim might be right. Again, the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration considers this to be a matter of detail that affects nothing revealed in the text. Nobody is deceived in any way by the misquotes, which in fact demonstrate the historical continuity between Old and New testaments. Only by assuming either that God overrules human agencies or that He elevates the normal powers of human memory can we classify these imprecisions as errors.

3. Statistical Discrepancies This section deals with inconsistent figures, not inflated figures like the example of the number of Israelites in the exodus. Here modernists claim error based on discrepancies between numbers given for the same event by different passages in the Bible. For instance, 2 Samuel 10:18 portrays David killing 700 charioteers, while 1 Chronicles 19:18 reports him killing 7000 charioteers on the same occasion. According to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, “it is impossible to determine which number is correct.”23 In a similar case, Numbers 25:9 reports 24,000 died in a particular plague, while 1 Corinthians 10:8 speaks of 23,000.24 The differences in the figures are insignificant from the perspective of the historical-cognitive model. There is no need for harmonization. The conflicting numbers represent the imprecision25 native to historical narratives with zero impact to their inherent truthfulness.26 Even if both sets of numbers were deleted, the historical truth of David’s victory over the Syrians and God’s judgment of a rebellion in Israel will not be affected. Again, this kind of discrepancy equals error only if we presuppose that Scripture’s purpose was to tell us all manner of detail with Enlightenment-style scientific precision. These cases clearly fall within our category of imprecision of detail, which underscores the fact that the events were recorded truthfully— and historically, with all the limitations that implies.

4. Reporting Historical Facts

HOME PAGE 468

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Let us consider a few cases of what Achtemeier and modernist theologians classify as historical errors, but the historical-cognitive model considers mere imprecisions. The first example consists in the discrepancy between Mark’s report that Jesus cited Abiathar as the high priest under whom David ate from the sanctuary’s consecrated bread (2:26). According to the Old Testament, however, the high priest in question was Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1-6).27 We find our second example in the New Testament reports of Jesus’ instructions to His disciples before He sent them on a missionary journey. Mark reports Jesus saying, among other things, that they should take nothing “except”a staff and sandals (6:8-9). In contrast, Matthew reports Jesus saying “not to take” sandals or a staff (10:9-10).28 The final case we are going to mention relates to Peter’s denying Christ three times before the cock crowed. “The issue concerns how many times the cock will crow before Peter has denied Jesus three times. In Mark 14:30, Jesus tells Peter that before the cock crows twice, Peter will have denied him three times. Matthew 26:34, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38 portray Jesus telling Peter that before the cock crows, the threefold denial will have occurred. In the event itself, Mark records the second crowing as the time of Peter’s realization of what he has done (i.e., denied Jesus three times) in Mark 14:72, while, true to their accounts, Matthew (26:74), Luke (22:60), and John (18:27) simply record that the cock crowed, clearly implying that this was the first time it happened. Such divergence raises for the conservative the problem of how to reconcile accounts in which there is no agreement on how many times the cock crowed prior to Peter’s denial.”29 None of these discrepancies actually affects the truth or the theology of the given passages. Of course, these are only a few samples; many others that can be found in the Bible.30 Let us move on to some more serious examples— “errors” in theology.

5. Inner Theological Inconsistencies According to the evangelical model of revelation-inspiration, God controlled word by word what was written in Scripture; how, then, are we to understand

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

469

contradictory theological concepts? Does not their existence falsify the evangelicals’claim of inerrancy? How does the historical-cognitive model weigh in? There are several obvious examples. For example, in the light of Christ’s condemnation of divorce (Matthew 19:3-9), Acthemeier thinks Moses was in error when he permitted divorce in Old Testament times (Deuteronomy 24:1).31 Then, in 2 Samuel 24:1-2, Scripture reports that God incited David to take a census of Israel; the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21:1-2 informs us that Satan incited David to take the census. They can’t both be right, or so one would think. If Christ taught us to love our enemies (Luke 6:27-28), how could God also have inspired David’s call for divine punishment over his enemies (Psalm 109)? Wasn’t David’s spirit un-Christian? This example opens the whole issue of divine wars and wrath presented in the Old Testament. Christian have traditionally solved this problem by claiming a theological discontinuity between Old and New Testaments. That same discontinuity is employed to explain the claim that Scripture embraces two ways of salvation, one through obedience to the law given through Moses to the Israelites (Leviticus 18:5), and the other by faith (Habakkuk 2:4) given through Christ to the Christians (Galatians 3:1-12; 2 Corinthians 3:6). If this is truly a theological error, it is of the highest significance. Finally, there is the widely recognized inconsistency between portraits of God, one immutable (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Job 23:13; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17), the other, changeable (Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14; Judges 2:18; 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 26:13; Amos 7:6; Jonah 3:10). This discrepancy is at the center of the current debate between classical evangelical theologies and the neo-classical open view of God. Achtemeier correctly affirms that “when this problem is resolved by affirming that to say God ‘repents’ is accommodation, whereas to say he is unchangeable is ‘how it is,’one has not drawn this difference from the biblical text.”32 How do we decide that “speaking of God’s ‘repenting’is the accommodation (i.e., how it appears to us)?” How does one know “that the language of God’s unchangeableness is not accommodation, with God’s repenting ‘how it really is’? Clearly, some other source than Scripture itself has led him to

HOME PAGE 470

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

this conclusion.”33 These inconsistencies or alleged theological errors are quite different from inconsistencies in numbers or the record of historical events. Here error is ascribed not to peripheral issues but to the Bible’s central revelatory themes: moral commands, God’s nature and his plan of salvation. Are these theological errors? Once again we return to the issue of presuppositions to explain the issue; certain presuppositions will lead a person to conclude that these discrepancies are error. In that case, his or her hermeneutical paradigm is not broad enough to include both ideas. This incapability, endemic to most schools of Christian theology, flows from the conviction that God is timeless and therefore does not operate historically as depicted in the Old and New Testaments. If God is timeless and reveals timeless unchangeable truths, contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time and in the same way. On the other hand, when one reads these examples of theological contradiction from the perspective of the historical-cognitive model, no real contradiction appears. As we have repeatedly noted in this volume, from a biblically defined hermeneutical paradigm, God is not timeless but an infinitely temporal, historical being. Because of this, He is able not only to reveal Himself and His thoughts, but to save us from within the flow of human history. God’s design for humanity, as manifested by law and predestination, is always the same. But to change the evil order created by sin, He must operate within the limitations imposed by finitude and sin. We can thus understand why God allowed divorce in Old Testament times. To call Moses’ permission to divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1) an error is to forget that in the time of Moses, such a law was a restriction on casual divorce, a standard higher than that of Israel’s pagan neighbors. Divine design for marriage has not changed (Genesis 1:27) but God adjusted his demands as a step in the process of restoring his likeness in them. Christ’s elevation of divine principle merely represented a higher revelation requiring a higher level of obedience (Matthew 19:3-9). If Scripture is historically revealed, God’s work of redemption is a historical process. In that process, theological “inconsistencies” actually demonstrate how salvation operates in real life. Instead of allowing differences between passages to

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

471

challenge our faith in the Bible, we should allow them to challenge our previously held theological ideas. This itself is a step in the Biblical process of redemption for our own lives. The same applies to the other examples. Both God and Satan were somehow involved in David’s decision to take a census of Israel. Historical reality is complex and often involves multiple causality from which God is never entirely absent. Both accounts of the census reveal the richness of the event in its theological depth. But it does require, perhaps, that we set aside our assumptions about God and salvation. Reality is complex, and Scripture recognizes this. It is not inconsistent to love our enemies and at the same time desire that God give them their just reward. When we leave to God whatever revenge on our enemies we feel necessary, we are loving them because we are entrusting them to the only one who can deal with them in complete justice. Besides, loving them does not eliminate the strong negative feelings resulting from what they have done to us, but channels those feelings in Christ and to Christ. In this light, for example, we would do well both to pray for the salvation of terrorists, and that they be brought both to justice and to a place where they can never harm another human being again. The Bible demonstrates that God involves Himself in punishing evil. He is loving, and yet He allows evil in order to vanquish it; this is not a theological contradiction but the possibility, essence and aim of the plan of salvation. Scripture forces us to understand God from both poles of what we might be tempted to view as an inconsistency. To overcome this temptation, we must understand both poles as two aspects of the larger process of salvation. As for supposed inconsistencies in God’s nature, we must again recognize that these inconsistencies do not exist in the biblical text but in our theological interpretation of it. What causes us to “see”such inconsistencies is an extrabiblical set of presuppositions, a theological paradigm we should get rid of. We do have to go back to the drawing board, but only to place our assumptions under the criticism of the Bible (as opposed to placing the Bible under the criticism of our assumptions).

HOME PAGE 472

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

§124. A HISTORICALLY COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF BIBLICAL RELIABILITY Let us conclude our examination of the consequences that the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration has for the veracity and reliability of the Bible. To do so, we will summarize its characteristics as an alternative explanation of Scripture’s reliability, one we will call the “historically comprehensive” view. Its characteristics can best be explained in contrast to the views of scriptural reliability arising from the other models of revelation-inspiration. Briefly, every model of revelation-inspiration gives rise to a view of Scripture’s reliability. The historical-cognitive model gives rise to the historically comprehensive view of the Bible’s accuracy. The classical model gives rise to what we might call the theological or partial view. The evangelical model gives rise to the meticulously inerrant view. And the modern model gives rise to a view that Scripture contains errors of every kind. We will compare the historically comprehensive view with the views engendered by the classical and evangelical models, but not to the modern model because we have chosen to reject the consideration that Scripture contains deliberate error. The classical model considers the Bible to be reliable only in a theological sense, because it claims accuracy only for biblical statements about the timeless, spiritual contents. In this view reliability does not extend to the spatio-temporal realm, so historical and scientific statements in Scripture can be found to be in error without affecting its theological contents. Because this model claims reliability only for the theological portions of Scripture, we might call it the “theological” or “partially reliable” view. The evangelical model supports and requires an exhaustive verbal reliability in all the Bible says and teaches. Because this model considers Scripture to be one hundred percent accurate on not only theology but also on detailed scientific and historical statements, we might call it the “meticulously inerrant” view. The historical cognitive model favors the idea that Scripture is reliable in a “historically comprehensive” way. This position recognizes the complexity of biblical thinking, and thus builds on the simultaneous interrelatedness of the three

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

473

levels of truth we began this chapter with (correspondence, coherence, and disclosure), and assumes a historical understanding of reality and human knowledge. To understand the Bible’s reliability as “historically comprehensive” means that it is trustworthy, first, at the historical realm where the incarnation of God’s acts and thoughts took place. Consequently, Scripture’ trustworthiness should be ascertained within the dynamics of everyday, commonsense thinking and not from within the shifting conventions of scientific scholarship. Second, biblical reliability is comprehensive because it extends to every level of truth, every sentence and every referent. Third, each part is reliable not in isolation from the comprehensive whole of Scripture but in relation to it. Finally, we should ascertain the Bible’s reliability from the wholistic view of biblical revelation, not from an analytical, scientifically detailed examination of each individual part. From this perspective, alleged errors at the disclosure level, such as claiming that “biblical creation must be wrong because we know evolution is true,” are rejected by faith in Scripture’s comprehensive, wholistic disclosure of divine truth. At the level of truth as coherence, the historically comprehensive view of biblical reliability rejects the existence of inner theological inconsistencies in Scripture; it understands that such inconsistencies are visible only from the perspective of nonbiblical, non-historical, non-comprehensive presuppositions (§123.5). At the coherence level, inconsistencies are recognized as such but are not considered errors. After all, when perceived from the historically comprehensive perspective, they are shown to be imprecisions in minor details characteristic of common, everyday historical thinking and reporting. Divine revelation in the Bible is not compromised by such trivialities. As we compare these views of biblical reliability, we see both similarities and differences. The historically comprehensive view differs from the modern view in that the latter allows for errors and misleading inaccuracies at all levels of truth, while the former does not. The historically comprehensive model differs from the classical, theological view in that the latter confines biblical reliability to timeless, non-historical theological or spiritual contents, while the former extends it to the entire contents of Scripture, which are understood as temporal and historical.

HOME PAGE 474

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Finally, the historically comprehensive view differs from the evangelical view of meticulous inerrancy in that the latter extends reliability to all biblical contents individually and at all levels, while the former extends it to all biblical contents as parts of an interrelated historical whole, but not individually at the level of minor details as previously defined (§122.3-4).

§125. REVIEW $ Biblical reliability as inerrancy. Inerrancy means that Scripture is “infallible,” “free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit,” and internally consistent. This inerrancy extends to all matters on which the biblical authors wrote (including scientific and historical ones), and not just to theological or spiritual themes. $ Truth as correspondence. In this view, a statement is true when its contents correspond to the reality it describes. For instance, if my wife tells me, “It’s snowing,” I expect to see snowflakes when I look outside. If no snow is falling, my wife’s statement is false; if it is falling, the statement is true. $ Truth as coherence. In this view, a statement or idea is true when it is completely consistent, or coherent, with all the arena to which it applies. To say, “A triangle has four angles,” is to make an inherently contradictory statement; it is incoherent and therefore false. $ Truth as disclosure. According to this view, truth is an unveiling, appearance, or revelation. The existence of the snowflakes or the triangle is the foundation of any statement we

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

475

make about them; without this unveiling or revelation of their realities, we could make no statement about them. Truth as disclosure is the foundation of truth as correspondence and as coherence. $ According to Paul, we can verify Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s good and perfect will for us. We can verify what God tells us about our lives by checking what He says against our everyday experience. Since what God wants for our lives is revealed in Scripture, in Romans 12:2 Paul tells us that we have a way to verify biblical revelation. $ The verification of biblical reliability depends on our interpretation of what reliability is. Our verification or falsification of Scripture will depend, among other things, on our presuppositions concerning God, Scripture, and the verification process itself. $ Neither biblical creation nor evolution can be verified or proven false. The event they describe is a singularity, an unrepeatable event; by definition it is not open to investigation. $ Challenges to biblical trustworthiness at the disclosure level. Challenges to biblical teachings come from philosophical, scientific and cultural teachings opposed to divine revelation. These challenges take place as a conflict of interpretations. To answer them, we must develop biblical apologetics as a theological discipline. $ Challenges to biblical trustworthiness at the correspondence level. Challenges to Scriptural reliability in this level come from sciences that study the referents involved. Among them are archaeology, historical sciences, natural sciences and the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation. To answer these challenges we must, one, respect the nature and intent of any biblical text we examine, two, remain aware of the limitations and hypothetical nature of

HOME PAGE 476

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

scientific constructs that attempt to verify biblical statements or prove them false, and three, challenge the presuppositional base of interpretations that claim to show the Bible to be wrong. $ Challenges to biblical trustworthiness at the coherence level. Challenges to Scriptural reliability at this level do not come from outside theology, as with the other levels, but from theological and exegetical interpretations. These challenges may be answered from a biblically developed systematic theology. $ The meaning of “error.” The notion of “error” includes two basic meanings: (1) lack of accuracy; and, (2) to lie or to produce untrue statements made with the intent to deceive. $ The historical cognitive model of revelation-inspiration affirms the reliability of Scripture. By beginning with a historical understanding of Scripture’s teachings, the historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration allows the meaning and inner consistency of its revelation to shine through, thereby affirming the truth of Scripture at the disclosure and coherence levels. At the level of correspondence, the historical-cognitive model claims there are no errors in Scripture. However, due to the limitations and imperfections of human knowledge (§70-§72), Scripture’s phenomena reveal a lack of perfect accuracy. These imperfections take place at the level of minor detail and enhance biblical truth rather than distorting it. $ Defining “detail.” For our purposes, a detail is a small, subordinate, nonessential part or qualification of a thing, whole or subject matter. A detail is subordinate because, like a parasite, it exists in something else. We know something is a detail, when, if we delete it, the meaning of the subject matter or reality to which it refers remains unchanged.

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

477

$ The Enlightenment myth of perfect accuracy. Perfect accuracy does not exist even in mathematics. The famous ancient mathematician Pythagorus was dismayed to discover there were some numbers, such as the square root of two or the number p (which is used to describe circles), that could not be expressed either with decimal integers or fractions. We know these "irrational numbers" exist (or, at least, we theologians accept on faith that mathematicians know they exist!), because they have been used in successful calculations for centuries. But it is impossible to express them with 100 percent accuracy using numbers most of us can understand; the most we can expect are approximations. Perfect accuracy does not exist even in mathematics. $ Revelation-inspiration and the “slippery slope.” The “slippery slope” is a word picture describing the question of Scripture’s reliability. It expresses the conviction that if a small error is found in Scripture, its entire reliability becomes suspect, and unbelief in its teachings justified. The historical-cognitive model does not share this conviction. The slippery slope, applied to the reliability of Scripture, is mere intellectual justification for a decision made out of ignorance or willful rejection of the Bible. Moreover, it works only within the evangelical view of meticulous inerrancy. $ The historical-cognitive model of revelation-inspiration favors a historically comprehensive view of biblical reliability. The historical-cognitive model recognizes the complexity of biblical thinking. When examining the reliability of Scripture, the model notes the simultaneous interrelatedness of the three levels of truth (correspondence, coherence and disclosure), and assumes a historical understanding of reality and human knowledge. $ Synthesis of the historically comprehensive model of biblical reliability.

HOME PAGE 478

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

To understand the reliability of Scripture as “historically comprehensive” means, first, that its trustworthiness takes place within the historical realm where God’s acts and thoughts take place. Consequently, Scripture’s trustworthiness should be ascertained within the dynamics of historical, everyday, commonsense thinking, not from within modern conventions of scientific scholarship. Second, biblical reliability is comprehensive because it extends to every level of truth, every sentence and every referent. Third, each part of revelation is reliable not in isolation from the comprehensive whole of Scripture, but in relation to it. Finally, biblical reliability should always be ascertained from the wholistic view of biblical revelation and not from the analytical outlook of a detailed examination of each individual par.

ENDNOTES 1

Edmund et alli Clowney, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” in

Explaining Inerrancy, ed. R. C. Sproul (Orlando: Ligionier Ministries, 1980), 5974. 2 For an introduction to the philosophical discussion on theories of truth, see Bradley Dowden and Norman Swartz, “Truth,” in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. James Fieser (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/, Internet, 2005). 3 See, for example, Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2 ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 248-249. 4 Ernst Troeltsch, Religion in History (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 13. 5 See, for example, Word and Sacrament I, ed. Hilton C. Oswald, Helmut T. Lehmann, and Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, 54 vols., Luther’s Works, vol. 35 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 117-125. 6 According to the historical-cognitive model, theological diversity in Scripture is part of the richness evoked by the incarnation of divine thought through the various patterns of revelation. So understood, such diversity is part of the harmonious process of historical redemption. From the perspective of the modern model of revelation-inspiration, diversity could be understood as a series of

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

479

contradictory views; for an example, see James Barr, The Scope and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980), 114-115. 7 Predestination in the biblical, non-Calvinistic understanding. One must consider biblical texts such as Ephesians 1:1-11 and Romans 11:36 without Augustinian lenses. 8 On the conservative side, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 93-94; on the modernist side see Paul J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority: The Nature and Function of Christian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 62. The emphasis in the quotation from Achtemeier is mine. 9 Achtemeier, 62. 10 Ibid., 56. 11 At this broad hermeneutical level, the Calvinist and Roman Catholic theological systems differ little. 12 These examples are from Grudem’s Systematic Theology, 93-94. 13 Why then do some evangelicals like Grudem hold so fast to the inerrancy of biblical detail, that is, the historical and natural contents of Scripture? Probably because their theology values the historicity of Christ’s life and resurrection far more than the modernists. 14 For an introduction to the debate, see Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (Hagerstown: Review and Herald, 1991), 221-223; and, Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, “An Analysis and Evaluation of Alden Thompson's Casebook/Codebook Approach to the Bible,” in Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, ed. Frank Holbrook, and Leo Van Dolson (Berrien Springs: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992), 54-57. 15 Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers, 241-242. 16 Inspiration and Authority, 45-63 17 For an interpretation of this passage from a commonsense point of view, see Francis D. Nichol ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Commentary [SDABC], Commentary Reference Series, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Leviticus 11:6-7.

HOME PAGE 480 18

THE COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Inspiration and Authority, 48, 49. Achtemeier believes Luke recognized the “error” about the mustard seed and rectified by deleting it from his Gospel (48, fn. 57). 19 Inspiration and Authority, 47, 51. 20 On the modernist side, Achtemeier claims in this case that Matthew corrected Mark’s error by quoting from Isaiah 40:3 (48). On the semi-inerrantist side, Samuel Koranteng-Pipim argues that Mark quotes from both Malachai and Isaiah; there is no error here except under a superficial reading by the modernists (Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact our Biblical Faith and Lifestyle [Berrien Springs: Berean Books, 1996], 294). 21 Receiving the Word, 295. 22 Inspiration and Authority, 59-61. 23 SDABC, 1 Chronicles 19:18. 24 “The difference may be explained by the words ‘fell in one day.’ Or, a thousand were perhaps slain by the judges on another day and so not included in Paul’s round number of those that ‘fell in one day.’” SDABC, Numbers 25:9. 25 Grudem recognizes the imprecision of biblical thinking. He seems to apply it, however, only to “round numbers,” and feels it necessary to explain that they are not untruthful (Systematic Theology, 91-92). However, he might not apply the idea of cognitive imprecision to the inconsistency between numbers in Scripture as I am suggesting. 26 According to Achtemeier, “Discrepancies are of course common in any literature, ancient or modern, where more than one account of the same event is recorded” ( Inspiration and Authority, 51). 27 Achtemeier believes Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4 corrected Mark’s error because they do not mention the high priest at all. 28 The SDABC, Matthew 10:10, explains this inconsistency by saying that according to Matthew’s explanation, Christ did not want them to take any extra sandals or staff. One can also harmonize these statements by claiming they report different historical occurrences of the same event. Achtemeier rejects this attempt. “Trying to solve such problems by positing two temple cleansings or two instructions to the disciples gets one into such problems as having to post six

HOME PAGE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF SCRIPTURE

481

miraculous feedings, since there are six accounts of that event in the Gospels, and all differ from one another” (Inspiration and Authority, 53). 29 Inspiration and Authority, 54-55. 30 For further examples and attempts to solve problems see Pipim, Receiving the Word, 279-301; Richard M. Davidson, “Revelation/Inspiration in the Old Testament: A Critique of Alden Thompson's 'Incarnational' Model,” in Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, ed. Frank and Leo Van Dolson Holbrook (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992), 105-135; and Randall W. Younker, “A Few Thoughts on Alden Thompson's Chapter: Numbers, Genealogies, Dates,” in Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, ed. Frank and Leo Van Dolson Holbrook (Berrien Springs: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992), 173-199. 31 According to Achtemeier, Christ taught that Deuteronomy needed to be corrected by Genesis 1:27 (Inspiration and Authority, 50). 32 Inspiration and Authority, 57. 33 Ibid.