One of the opening lines in the Tale of Two Cities characterizes the ethos of that time setting stating that “it was the best of times and the worst of times.” The same could be said about Evangelicalism in regards to its approach to Bibliology. Although there have been great strides and rides between the crescents of education and technology and the progress seen in academia with its proliferation of Doctoral candidates is overwhelmingly large, there also have been a resurgence of age-old heresies disguised under the labels of new and innovative.
The technological breakthroughs and deeper understanding of the many enigmas that were previously misunderstood or not understood at all have given humanity an amazing confidence that makes it feel as though it is about to reach God. The tower of Babel could very well characterize the presumptuous attitude to understanding in general. In a recent debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Peter Atkins, Atkins’ attitude best represents this attitude in regards to human understanding. He said that although there are many things that are not yet explained by science, given some time, science alone will be able to explain all of life’s mysteries. This haughty attitude is a display of the arrogant understanding of our age. With each new technological or scientific breakthrough there is a brick that is laid down in the construction of our symbolic Tower of Babel.
How does this affect our evangelical understanding of Theology and how we apply to our every day lives? In a desperate effort to pull back the curtain to see if there really is a wizard of Oz, we have tried to pull back the theological curtain only to find a god that we have fashioned to our understanding and liking. A god that is fashioned to that which is within our grasps of understanding mixed with a batch of mysticism is now very much popularized by market entrepreneurs and national booksellers. There is a crisis of Prolegomena or the necessary preconditions for doing Bibliology. And if we continue to feebly fashion this god with our own jewelry of understanding we will end up with something no bigger, no more majestic, no more powerful and transcendent than the confines of our imagination. It was Voltaire who said something to the effect that God made man in his image and man returned the favor.
These necessary preconditions for doing theology or what is better called as Prolegomena, (lit: to speak before) are the essential building blocks in order for Bibliology to stand on firm ground. This paper will discuss three elements that are part of Prolegomena and how they affect a particular field within Theology, namely, Bibliology. These three constituents are the metaphysical, the interrelational and the hermeneutical preconditions for doing proper Bibliology.
The Metaphysical Precondition
When the Metaphysical preconditions are established before doing Bibliology we see that the relationship between natural and special revelation have a direct correspondence. If the correspondence between these two differs in any area, then there are serious implications that would demonstrate that Bibliology is not a true science. If the Bible is not true, then where is the motivation to study it as the Word of God? The Question then arises “how would the science then be different than the Bhagavad-Gita or the Qur’an.” It would then remain as just an extensive and impressive piece of literary work.
However, we will point out that once the work is done a proper and valid Bibliology can be established. Note that although we can talk about all of the implications a proper Metaphysics would render we will deal with only two areas that are directly related to this field of theology. Two crucial aspects of Bibliology that Prolegomena will demonstrate are whether there is divine authorship and if the material in question is without error.
Validity of Scripture as the Word of God
There is a song that children in churches all over have memorized and joined in unison to sing at one time or another. “…yes Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so.” Although this statement could not be more clearer and full of truth, there needs to be a source outside that would authenticate whether the Bible is the word of God. The source of authenticity cannot rely within the realm of scripture because that would be a petitio a princippi or “begging the question.” In order to see if the scriptures are true we need to rely on an exterior correspondence. The Bible says in its own defense that the authorship is of divine origin and was stated by Jesus who by miracles and fulfilled prophecy proved that he was the Son of God (John 10:35). In another passage it also states that the author cannot mislead or lie (Heb. 6:18). In addition, God is truth according to the Gospel of John (14:6).
Yet, although it seems that the Bible is consistent within itself (we will further expound this in the next section) we cannot use this principle to validate Bibliology. In order to see if God spoke we need to see if God exists. It does not make sense to say that Bible is true without acknowledging if the Author is true. A Shakespearean novel could substantiate claims that it is of Shakespearean influence if Shakespeare never existed. That would be absurd. That is why, one of the necessary preconditions for scripture is the fact that God exists. The Bible makes many more claims of its divine authorship and although as revelation it shows the internal consistency, we cannot use it to be a demonstrative proof for authenticity to an unbeliever. Once the first step is established of providing reasonable evidence for the existence and interaction of this Divine Author, we can then warrant a fortiori the veracity of the Bible and external correspondence to truth.
The Inerrancy of Scripture as the Word of God
Another area that will be evident by unpacking the Metaphysical precondition is whether or not in the pursuit of Bibliology we can find the Bible to be accurate. Once the divine authorship is established, we need to see if what He has inspired and co authored is accurate according to the witness of scripture itself (2 Tim 3:16). It was Arthur Holmes who stated, “All truth is God’s truth.” If this statement is true, then whatever God relays has to be true. Furthermore, according to the writer of Hebrews, God cannot lie (6:18). The author of Hebrews probably had in mind verses such as the one found in Numbers where Balaam was telling Balaac that “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” The internal evidence has shown that if God is true what he authors has to consequently be true. Nevertheless, we need to establish the external evidence to see if truth in scripture is authenticated by the veracity of the Author. The internal witness says that the Author is incapable of error because he cannot lie.
What metaphysical qualities can we discover in God to prove that what He authors is true and also errorless? We claim that the Bible does not contain error.
However, the allegations against this claim come from both sides of the fence. Skeptics vehemently voice that the Bible is so full of errors it cannot be trustworthy, not to mention a book that shows the way to eternal life with God. The liberals, on the other hand, in order to circumvent the responsibility of taking some time to actually think these issues through, punt the ball by saying that the Bible just “contains the word of God.” Although this statement seems harmless at first glance, it is a copout that leaves open the possibility for the Bible to also contain errors. But as we shall see in the ensuing paragraphs, if God says who he says He is, then God cannot err.
The Metaphysical Unpacking of Theism
Although this theme can be unpacked to overwhelming amounts, we will briefly put it in a nutshell. Our first task is to see if there is God and if the description thereof corresponds to authenticating scripture as His word that is true. In addition, his nature and attributes as a Being have to correspond to his work. If his work says that He is one (Deut. 6:4), self-existing (Ex. 3:14), eternal (1 Tim. 1:17) among other attributes, and his existence has to correspond to his word or testimony (Heb. 3:19), there should then be compliment and not controversy.
What you learn though Metaphysics is that God has to be eternal, because if He were in time, then God would go from act to potency and in successive moments. But God is pure actuality. He cannot have potency because then he himself would need an actualizer to activate his potency. God has to also be one because if there were many beings who were all powerful, perfect and eternal, how then can you tell where one ended and where the other started? You cannot have two or more alls! Furthermore, if they were to be distinguished at all, then one would have something that the other one would lack. So in effect, there is one Being who has to be greater than the effects. He is the sufficient reason that explains our Being and continued existence (Col 1:16-18). We cannot cause ourselves because we would have to be ontologically prior to ourselves in order to cause ourselves. But that leads to an infinite regress of causes. There has to be a Being that causes all Being. Although we do not know what this Being is we know that this Being is. We can also deduce some things about him through from his effects. For example, in us humans, if we are limited (experience tells us that we are) then this Being has to be unlimited. If I know contingently and limited, then our Cause has to know unlimitedly and non contingently. In essence, He is the unlimited limiter of all that is limited. Note that not everything we have applies to this Being but that only transcendental properties apply by way of analogy to this Being in an infinite way. God is then real and exists. If God exists, He then is a Being who cannot not exist but gives existence to all other Beings. God’s essence is to exist. Thus, God is perfect. If God is perfect, then his truth cannot have defect. If his truth does not have defect then whatever God says must be true. The Bible is the word of God because Jesus, who is God, confirmed it by his own life and words (John 10:35). So the Bible has to be true.
In effect, the Bible is true because God is true. The Bible has Divine authority because Jesus confirmed it and he was the Son of God confirmed by the prophecies and miracles. The book of Hebrews says that God spoke through many ways and through many prophets. So God is the divine Author of Holy Scripture. And we also see that whatever God does, he does perfectly. He cannot err. So in effect, the Bible cannot contain any errors.
Faith and Reason
There is a sense in which the less you know the more you know. The more irrational the faith might get then the more mystical we can feel about the certainty of scripture. There have been known comments that if we go out to prove everything then there will be no more room for faith. The bifurcation between faith and reason has brought serious consequences. This needs to be also evaluated of a proper prolegomena is to be effectuated. Why do we have to delve into the relationship of faith and reason in order to do proper Bibliology? It is important because the wedding and distinction of these two concepts affect the very truths of scripture. For example, although special revelation (the Bible) tells truth it does not contain all of the truth. The same can be said about what can be discovered by natural revelation needs the special revelation to add information we need to make the revelation complete.
Faith and Reason as Needed in General and Special Revelation
For example psalm 19 describes this two-step process. If we just believe that “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” it is enough to shows us that God exists but it is not enough for us to believe in God. This would be enough for intellectual assent but not volitional. (Rom 1:18-20). However, if we just confine ourselves to special revelation then other, broader truths could not be apprehended, judged or proved such as science, mathematics and the arts. So there is an intricate relationship between faith and reason. Lets us look at the several views that could affect the way we do our Bibliology.
Rationalism
Rationalism is an approach that pretends to solve all of life’s mysteries and truths by reason alone. There was even an age in which it was called the age of reason where you had people such as Rene Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. One of the ideas that rationalists believed were that there were foundational truths that the mind started with that cannot be denied. In reference to Christianity, Rationalism holds that even propositions believe that are solely held by faith can also be held by reason. However, as we will see later, there are some truths in Scripture (although reasonable but self evident in themselves) are only apprehended by special revelation. There has to be a distinction in the limiting scope of reason in relation to matters of faith. Peter Kreeft observes that Anselm leaned toward rationalism when he “tried to prove even the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation by strict rational philosophical arguments, what he called ‘necessary reasons.’”
Fideism
Fideism asserts a type of blind faith that reaches out to the heavens. It is a type of Kierkegaardian leap. Although he was responding to the cold and calculated rationalists of his day, his view (somewhat existential) denied that evidence could be useful in proofs for God. What would be the effect of Fideism on Bibliology? Well, in an Apologetic sense, it would regard the Bible as coherently true but any evidentiary elements that would prove the external veracity of the Bible would be dismissed. This provides for a weak defense of Bibliology. This, I think, also discourages a proper offensive Apologetic in that the person would hide in the closet of subjectivism. In addition, the nature of God is a rational one.
Unity in Diversity
For an accurate approach to a rational being that invites us to reason in His scriptures (Isa. 1:18) and yet tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God (notice that it doesn’t say believe), we need to have a shared role of faith and reason. Although they both have functions in matters of belief, they have to be distinguished in purpose and function. These distinctions have to be acknowledged before we do Bibliology.
There are truths that are apprehended by faith without reason. There are also truths that are apprehended by both faith and reason. And finally, there are truths that can be grasped by reason without faith. For faith is an assent of the will toward the unseen. Reason on the other hand, cannot coerce our intellect but only inform it. It is by faith, which is sometimes supported by reason that the intellect assents to in belief. God is the Author of both of these concepts although one has to supersede the other. By supersede it does not mean that it concedes to absurdities but that there are things that cannot be grasped by the senses. It is like a plane that supersedes and not violates the law of gravity when it is in flight. With a proper understanding of faith and reason we can reconcile truths that are both found in special revelation and general revelation.
The Hermeneutical Precondition
Now that we have shown that God exists, and that we can talk about him through faith and reason as evidenced and supported by scripture, we will now look at one that runs at the heart of Bibliology. We have established that God cannot err. What usually errs is our interpretation of scripture. With this in mind, a common and sometimes vicious problem that we face now a day is whether there can be any objectivity in interpreting the word of God. People like Derrida, Wittgenstein, and Jean Baudrillard have made waves in interpretation that have had devastating effects. While Frege conventionalized truth down to the stratum of society, Wittgenstein gift-wrapped it in the sphere of word play. And finally, Derrida turned language into a sort of Rubik’s cube that can be deconstructed and constructed in proportion to a rhetorical interpretation. If there is no objectivity then how can we interpret God’s word as a historical event conveying truth that corresponds to reality?
What this does is that it strips all objective meaning from scripture. Historicity, language and interpretation can seem to be affected if there is no objectivity in Interpretation. It all comes down to an issue of truth. Is truth relative or objective? If there are no objective statements than there is one objective statement that is true and mainly it is the one that it is being stated. While Postmodernism reacts to the previous age of Reason it is cutting itself with its own knife. Many of these theories that try to come against the objectivity in Interpretation usually end up in self-referential contradictions. Many times in denying the truth they assert at the same time. Although critics in the New York Post herald people like Derrida as “"perhaps the world's most famous philosopher — if not the only famous philosopher," the issue stands as if these tests for objectivity and meaning really hold up to the test in reality.
Conclusion
These areas are just three of twelve preconditions for doing Bibliology. There are many battles that are being fought in the world of ideas both outside (Apologetics) and inside (Polemics). It seems that every so often there is a battle for something going on because of an improper Prolegomena done with Bibliology or even Theology for that matter. Every major Christian doctrine has come under attack in recent times. There has been the battle for the resurrection, for the Bible, and most recently for God. The heretics, not content with tampering with essential doctrines, have aimed to go for the jugular of Theism, God himself. It is up to us to live up to our responsibility and work out the apparent complexities of Bibliology. And if we have a proper Prolegomena, then we can feel assured that we are heading on the right track.
No Tag
