#12 "Biblical Authority" Post #3

As I said Alan, an excellent post. The last paragraph in particular: “I love the messiness of scripture. I like that it didn't just drop down out of heaven. If it had, it would certainly be cleaner. But it didn't and it isn't. God used priests and prophets, men who struggle with faith, pharisees, kings, and sinners to write it. He inspired them to leave themselves within it as they wrote. It's muddied with men and culture. It's saturated with and empowered by the Spirit. It's perfect in every way.”

I was hoping to get to the “Biblical Authority” concept from a Christian perspective, but also from a historical perspective. As in, what are the nuts and bolts of how the Bible became the Bible, as opposed to a random collection of books from different centuries, different authors, and different cultural perspectives. The history of Nicea, Trent, Constantine, the Gnostics and such is pretty fascinating stuff.

But, you jumped a few steps ahead with your response. The question I was trying to put out there was actually answered to the highest degree possible. Meaning, I can already see that this post, my response post, is likely pointless. One of the difficult things in discussing religion, as a non-religious person, is that religious people have “the answer”. When an issue is a matter of “faith”, then trying to make an argument with “fact” is rather futile. (I put faith and fact in parentheses because neither of them are perfected in me or you).

To the question I was attempting to ask, if I may be so bold as to summarize in my own words (or as some of “Team Alan” have stated, “Put words in Alan’s mouth”), here’s what I get from your response: Although the compilation of the Bible was done over a long period of history and by varying degrees of “righteous” and “unrighteous” men, the Holy Spirit ran herd over the whole enterprise assuring us that the Bible is indeed the “Word of God”. While it may be opaque at times, it is none the less without fault. Therefore, the only fault that can be derived from scripture is in the interpretation brought to it by an individual.

That’s what I think you are saying. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.

If that is true, then perhaps there is nothing to discuss here. Although you chide the sophomoric, “God said it. I believe.That settles it.” approach to faith, in fact yours appears to be a sophisticated veneer of the same philosophy. Which, to be fair, is unavoidable. At some point, one must abandon knowledge in order to express faith. As you’ve stated repeatedly, the Tree of Knowledge is not the path to Heaven. (However, it is handy for science, math, medicine, real estate deals, kite flying and other noble pursuits! Let’s not chop it down just yet.) It’s a little disconcerting that the pursuit of knowledge seems to be in conflict with the pursuit of “truth”. What to do with this pre-frontal lobe then?

As it is categorically impossible to “prove” the existence of God, thus the need for faith, it is further impossible to prove or disprove the divine inspiration of the Bible. You either believe it, or you do not.

Having played the game “Telephone” and having attended a few conferences (ecclesiastical and otherwise) over the years I remain circumspect on the seemingly virginal birth story of this best sellers genesis. I guess the answer remains the same; I lack the faith. All the messy facts have become a stumbling block.

Or could it be a cornerstone?

So if I am wed to Reason and you are wed to Faith, how can we communicate about these ideas? I am stumped.

Perhaps in a future post, in order to answer a few questions from some readers, I can give the bullet points of how I went from tongue-talking, Bible-thumping, born-again Christian to the apostate that stands before you now. However, I think I know what the response to that will be as well; either my faith was flawed from the beginning or I’ve been caught in the snares of the Devil himself. 

Jace