I recall attending a Bible Study group where the text being read was James 2:14-26. This led to a very interesting discussion. It is an interesting passage. Here we read things like this:
“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?” [Implied answer: no.]
“So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”
“Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.”
“Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?”
“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
“For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.”
And I was reminded again of the vital relationship between faith and works in the teachings of the Bible. Genuine faith must eventuate in good works — in obedience to God and service to others. While I am never in a position to judge the genuineness of another person’s faith — nonetheless, faith must always make a difference. And, this is one of the reasons I am thankful for the Wesleyan holiness tradition where my early faith was nurtured. Here are some themes that I especially appreciate in the Wesleyan perspective on faith:
Following in the tradition of John Wesley, the Methodist outlook on theology is thoroughly based on scripture, but also enlivened through tradition, experience, and reason.
Methodists believe that “all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God.” They believe that the written Word of God is the only and sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice in life.
Methodists live in a vital faith relationship with God. They turn from sin, and turn to Christ in faith. It is faith in Christ alone that can reconcile us to God.
Since this is actually another blog re-boot, I thought it would be good to re-iterate my intentions for this web site and this blog — and for my various Internet projects.
In my last post in this series, I pointed out that 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 may not be as helpful in understanding the idea of the divine inspiration of the Bible as it might seem at first glance.To restate: Because this passage uses the word θεόπνευστος (literally: “God-breathed”) and because 2 Peter 1:21 speaks of prophets who were “borne along by the Holy Spirit,” and “spoke from God” — this would seem to suggest that the inspiration of the Scriptures was some sort of divine dictation, similar to (what people suppose was true of) prophetic inspiration. But, since the writings these authors are speaking of surely is the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) — interpreters (especially Protestant ones!) have good reason not to draw that conclusion. The Septuagint differs somewhat from the Hebrew Bible, and contains additional books. Anyway, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 is more focused on the usefulness of Scripture than on any theory of its inspiration and authority.
Most interpreters want to avoid the idea of inspiration as a sort of direct dictation from God — even though this idea has some popularity among the Christian public. Thus, for example, Louw & Nida say:
“In a number of languages it is difficult to find an appropriate term to render ‘inspired.’ In some instances ‘Scripture inspired by God’ is rendered as ‘Scripture, the writer of which was influenced by God’ or ‘… guided by God.’ It is important, however, to avoid an expression which will mean only ‘dictated by God.’” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains 1989).
Interpreters want to avoid the notion of divine dictation because it does not seem to accord with what we otherwise know to be the process by which the Scriptures were written. And, it is to this I want to turn now.
Let’s take a look at those few passages where the Biblical authors talk to us about the process of writing and their intentions in writing.
“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”
Luke does not speak of the writing of his Gospel as being a divine dictation — or anything like it.
He tells us that he set out to write not just an “account” (διήγησιν, as in verse 1), but “an orderly account” (καθεξῆς). Louw & Nida say that the word καθεξῆς means “a sequence of one after another in time, space, or logic” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains 1989). Time, thought, and organization went into the writing. Not only that, but investigation and research preceded the writing itself: “after investigating everything carefully from the very first….” It is said here that Luke’s account of the life of Jesus from the testimony of those who were “eyewitnesses and servants of the word….”
So, this is not at all the same as the delivery of an oracle. It was often claimed that the Oracle at Delphi fell into a trance and delivered messages in that state. But, Luke tells us that his writing proceeded from research, thought, and organization.
The ecstatic structure of human spirituality would also suggest a trance-like type of inspiration. But, in Christianity mind and spirit generally work together. The Holy Spirit imparts wisdom and rationality. While ecstatic in a very basic way, it awakens the mind rather than suppressing it.
This is a wisdom which was often well-expressed within the 19th Century Holiness movement — but seems to have been forgotten since. Here are the views of Thomas C. Upham (1799–1872):
The person, who is guided by the Holy Spirit, will be eminently perceptive and rational. The operations of the Holy Spirit, in the agency which he exerts for the purpose of enlightening and guiding men, will not be found to be accidental, or arbitrary, or in any sense irrational operations. …
We repeat, therefore, that one evidence, of being guided by the Holy Spirit, is, that such guidance contributes to the highest rationality. In other words, the person, who is guided by the Holy Spirit, other things being equal, will be the most keenly perceptive, judicious, and rational. Not flighty and precipitate; not prejudiced, one-sided, and dogmatical, but like his great inward teacher, calmly and divinely cognitive. The experience of holy men, particularly of those who have made it a practice to ask the guidance of the Holy Spirit on their studies, agrees with this statement.
So, however we are to understand the nature of Biblical inspiration, it is not as a trance-like inspiration that overrides human rationality. It is not divine dictation — and this fact is attested by Luke, one of the most prominent of the New Testament authors. It is the community of faith that recognizes these writings as “inspired” “God-breathed” and its authors as “cared along by the Spirit” — even though it was a rational process to the writers themselves.
Furthermore, Luke wants us to know that his book rests on the testimony of “eyewitnesses.” It is about events that actually happened. So, again, this is not a collections of oracles given by immediate inspiration — Luke wants to make a credible claim that it is the account of events that happened.
This insight, in turn points us toward the kind of revelation that the Bible imparts to us. It is not so much a direct vision of God as it is a record of events that reveal the nature, will, and purpose of God. It is historical revelation. The inspired words of Scripture witness to revelatory events.
Again, taking 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 and 2 Peter 1:21 by themselves would seem to suggest something different. But, in fact, this is an evaluative statement being made about the writings of rational minds illuminated by God’s Spirit.
But, we can’t let these observations rest on Luke alone. So, next I want to turn to some other passages that tell us about the process by which the Bible was written.
People mean different things when they speak of “faith.” I’m not sure the differences in meaning are always noticed. So it’s helpful to clarify. Here is what I mean when I talk about faith or the life of faith.
As I understand it, faith in God (theism) is the belief that behind the world we see there is a Power of righteousness, mercy and justice. There is a benevolent, kind and good Creator. God is the reason there is something rather than nothing.
And, atheism would be the denial that any such being exists. The “why there is something rather than nothing” question remains unanswered. Further, in this view, we are here by (enormously unlikely) random chance and there really is no meaning or purpose to any of it. We create meanings where none exist. I’m not meaning to speak of such an atheistic viewpoint disparagingly — not at all. I can see how a person could come to such a view. It does have a certain simplicity to it. And, to be honest, I can even sympathize with some of the atheist concerns about the dangers and pitfalls of religion. I know them very well. (Though I really think the late Christopher Hitchens was being naive in a way — it is world-views — godless ones included — that threaten to poison everything.)
