Devotional Resources
Credo for Christian Theology
December 1st, 2001
May God be Praised!
Prolegomena - First Things
To speak about prolegomena is to by necessity, as do all the creeds in their beginnings, to first assert, "I believe in God …" This first assertion is to recognize that God is, and that this is independent of our belief or disbelief. From there we ponder in our inept way just what that means and what we may know of this God that is. Our knowledge of God is without a doubt human in its condition and substance, but yet we understand that nothing can be known about God outside of what God reveals to us, thus the only source of our knowledge of God is God’s self-revelation. God dwells in the light which no one can approach according to 1st Timothy 6:16 and therefore reveals what can be known about God in a twofold manner: 1) In creation, the realm of nature, and 2) in His Word, the only source and norm of Christian doctrine. This leaves us to distinguish between a natural and Christian knowledge of God.
General Revelation
From the environment that surrounds us, we look around and perceive in our thoughts the notion of God, a notitia Dei naturalis. We see and attempt to understand and make sense of the nature surrounding us and innately sense a divine work in creation, "which bear the unmistakable stamp of being God-made" (Pieper 371). This general revelation by the creator in its creation is explained by Paul in Romans 1:20, "The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead." Although God is invisible, God wishes to be seen and understood through what has been made. In the sense of general revelation, an invisible God provides abundant witness and self-manifestation clearly through His own visible creation and approaches us through things outside of us.
In Lutheran theology, the Creator God’s self revelation in creation leaves us with a conscience that bears witness against us by accusing or excusing us. God’s self-revelation also within us, as part of creation, is a divine Law written into the hearts of all created men and women. Attempts to escape the God who is has led many down the road of atheism and idol worship, but these have only been attempts to suppress one’s own reason, or to propitiate a god in idol worship, sacrifices, and so on, in order to silence their accusing consciences. By seeing God clearly by what has been made through God’s own self-revelation in creation, our own conscience is "God’s tribunal within man and is recognized as such by man" (Pieper 372). Even Aristotle once said, "Though God is invisible to every mortal creature, He is visible from His very works." We are left then without excuse, "For the law of nature will never permit anyone to entertain as his deliberate and settled conviction the conclusion that there is no God" (Pieper 373).
Special Revelation
God reveals to all without discrimination through creation, but "although the concept of general revelation is valid and helpful, it is also limited" (Grenz 138). It does not contain a complete self-disclosure of God and his nature, purpose and will. General revelation provides a testimony to the presence of the God, but it is insufficient to attain salvation. General revelation arouses the conscience and shows us there is a God and a divine Law, but it does not enable us to keep this Law, "being strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:12).
The natural knowledge of God cannot deliver us from an evil conscious estranged from God and God’s Law. Special revelation, however, reveals God as redeemer and how to enter into a relationship with Him. Special revelation comes to certain special or specific persons for specific and special purposes to reveal specific purposes or specific aspects of God, such as God’s self-revelation to Isaiah and his subsequent commissioning in Isaiah 6:1-9. The incarnation of the Son in the person of Jesus Christ is the ultimate special revelation of God. It points to God’s redemptive purpose revealed and fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the work of atonement. Scripture reveals and points to Jesus as the Word made flesh and the primary revelation of God Himself in Jesus, which is our salvation.
Authority
While the Reformers were agreeing with each other on the authority of Scripture, the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, however, released such a flood of critical thought, applying reason and nature to Biblical interpretation, that the authority issue of Scripture came into serious question. The result of years of placing critical reasoning over Scripture is that the Bible "no longer functions as an unquestioned presupposition, as it did in the theology of the reformers, but is treated precisely as that which has to be established" (Braaten and Jensen 1984, 69). The issue of the authority of Scripture has thus become a matter of individual interpretation, in other words, it boils down to one of being a hermeneutical question, i.e. how one reads the Bible.
Again, going back to the Reformers, Luther’s principle of interpretation of Scripture was a remarkable break from the overused allegorical method in use since the time of Origen (185-254 AD). The allegorical method held that there were many differing levels of meaning in the passages of Scripture. These roughly corresponded to a physical, moral, spiritual, and mystical sense of interpretation. The problem, Luther saw, with the Allegorical Method, was that one could prove just about anything they wanted from Scripture. Luther’s principle of interpretation was the insistence on the literal-historical and philological exposition of the Scriptures. If Scripture is to maintain its authority within the Church, then it must be bound to the original sense as that which appears in the Hebrew and Greek texts. "The Holy Spirit is the plainest writer and speaker in heaven and earth, and therefore His words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest, sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural sense" (Luther 1961, v39, p 178).
The biblical interpreter, according to Luther, must search out the literal sense of Scripture because every passage has only one authentic meaning. In this sense, the interpreter is not the master or judge of Scripture, but seeks to only bring to expression Scripture’s own witness to itself. This finds further clarity in the Lutheran principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture," i.e. Scripture authenticates itself. The standard of interpretation cannot come from outside of Scripture. "Scripture is therefore its own light. It is a grand thing when Scripture interprets itself" (Althaus 1966, 76). To Luther, the Holy Spirit is quit capable of enabling the right interpretation of Scripture, but the Spirit does not operate apart from the scriptural word. This insures no authority is erected alongside Scripture or above it whether it is the Church or our own intellect of reasoning. The authority of Scripture, then, also comes from the testimony of Scripture about itself, of which it makes abundantly clear, i.e. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
Such was the position of Lutheranism even against the full weight of biblical criticism in the age of the Enlightenment. With the full emergence of Enlightenment and its method of scientific inquiry and criticism, its followers developed what is known as the historical-critical method of investigation. The methods of historical-critical investigation did not seek to apply a canon of criticism from within Scripture itself, but developed an autonomous scientific criticism used on all documents from antiquity. This means that the same criticism, which was applied to all other ancient writings, was now applied to the biblical writings without hesitation. In this methodology, the doctrine of divine inspiration has no heuristic validity in the investigation. In fact, its investigation of the Bible must be examined as all other literary remains from antiquity. This method, firmly seated in a hermeneutic of suspicion, requires the investigator to be unprejudiced concerning the special authority of the book. In this methodology, every claim of Scripture is suspect until proven otherwise by rational scientific inquiry.
Unfortunately, the application of this method of investigation, approaching the Bible as merely a laboratory specimen, has led to virulent conflict with traditional modes of understanding. The resulting suspicion has led to the belief by scholars that the literal historicity of things recorded by Scripture is impossible to assume as correct. "What the biblical authors report is not accepted as a literal transcript of the factual course of events" (Braaten and Jensen 1984, 76). A real history therefore needs to be constructed behind the recorded events of the Bible, which has only spurned endless debates concerning such things as the relationship between the historical Jesus and the Christ of apostolic faith and preaching. Meanwhile, the world sits on the sidelines, watching the debates on television, growing evermore distrustful of the Bible and its gospel message.
This has not served the mission of the Church very well and in these discussions, many fail to realize the underlying problem with a hermeneutic of suspicion, i.e. the historical-critical method. The underlying problem is that "if we used the same critical standards on other ancient literature that modernists use on the Bible, we would doubt every single fact we know today about every single writer and event before the Middle Ages" (Kreeft & Tacelli 1994, 205). In fact, under true investigation, the Bible fares quite well against historical and scientific scrutiny. If the same standards historians and textual scholars apply to ancient secular literature were applied to the Bible, the biblical accounts would be accepted as some of the most reliable of all ancient documents. Still, it is amazing how quickly destructive critics have nothing but scorn for unexplained discrepancies in the biblical accounts, i.e. the Jesus Seminar, but it is even more amazing how quickly the scorn is forgotten when archeological discovery vindicates the biblical statements time and time again. "All the merciless attacks which through the ages have been made on the Bible, and despite all of the fierce light of criticism which so long has been beating upon its open pages, not so much as one single error has been definitely proved to exist anywhere in the Bible" (Boettner 1940, 50).
Towards a Hermeneutic of Trust
One definition of the word trust is an assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something. In this sense, then, the reliability of Scripture, rather than an argument on literal historicity, as the historical-critical method claims, needs to be affirmed before the question of authority can be finally affirmed. Therefore the case for reliability needs to be made in order to again establish authority. It is this sense of reliability that is at stake in these modern times. The Enlightenment apparatus of the historical-critical approach has driven hard into the heart of reliability, but the Scriptures still stand on their own, as their own testament. Reliability builds trust, which is what the traditional hermeneutics of Luther’s day was built upon - a hermeneutic of trust, if you will. The Reformation theologians and biblical scholars approached Scripture on the basis of trust, but this trust wasn’t just blind trust and obedience as some scholars suggest. This was a proven trust they came to rely upon as true and trustworthy enough to stake their lives upon. To them, the Scriptures were a completely reliable source for not only life and faith, and doctrines of the Church, but for the historical account they provided.
In building a hermeneutic of trust, it would need to be shown that the Scriptures are first a reliable historical record of the events. Notice that accuracy is not the main issue because historical accounts are never completely accurate. In any multiple eyewitness accounts in a court of law, there are variations to the reports, but reliability is established if they all tell the same story without irrefutable evidence to the contrary. There will always be minor variations to the details of any story, because each person witnesses the account from their own unique perspective, but the story recounted is still true. This is true with the biblical witness as well. There isn’t one variance in the New Testament that changes one point of doctrine. In fact, variances and differences in the biblical account more readily testify to its authenticity. If they all agreed perfectly with each other, it would seem stilted and staged. It is the humanness within the witness of the New Testament that lends the authenticity. There are, of course, and as expected, many minor variations in the recorded account, but not one changes the story or the important point of who Jesus claimed himself to be and the events of his life, including the resurrection.
To its own detriment, the historical-critical method draws too fine of a distinction between history and theology. One argument against the historical-critical method is that the New Testament does not teach history, but faith – a better argument more true to Scripture’s testimony of itself is how is the account faithful to the one who is at the center of history and faith - sovereign over history. What needs to be seen is that the historical-critic’s argument for historicity is a radical departure from how classical Judaism, and subsequently Christianity, sees itself in its classical contextual understanding of history. History is understood in the context of God acting in history. We can’t take God out of history because Judaism is hopelessly bound to history. For example, many of the Psalms recount God’s mighty acts in history. The example of Abraham’s faith is taught through his history. In fact, so many spiritual truths are taught through history that Judaism can only understand itself within the context of history. The primary precept is that God acts in history. This must be true for Christianity as well.
Theology therefore, can not be divorced from history because the two are inseparably married through out time. "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" places God in history, time, and gives a certain theology and truth. The theology of the statement is understood in its historicity and thus comes to us as a completely reliable account. This means both history and theology are more readily understood within the context of each other, as St. Luke writes at the beginning of his gospel account,
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 with certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4).
From the outset of his account, Luke intends to provide historical information – carefully investigated – to support the theology that has been taught to Theophilis. Luke does this so Theophilus could with assurance, place his trust in the reliability of the account. Ultimately, what Luke writes is the goal and purpose of the entire account of the Bible.
Conclusion
God has graciously given his word so that we can come to know him and believe with certainty what we have heard and learned, and come to believe. God called his church into existence and preserved it by his oral word. Through Moses, God chose to transmit his word in writing and bind his church to the written word of God as the thread of history moved forward to the day of Christ. Jesus again preached the oral word of God for he was the word made flesh and again bound his church to the Apostle’s word as the basis of faith for the entire New Testament era. The Apostles themselves pass on to us what they have heard and learned from Christ, and in this context, Scripture has the authority to speak to us today with the very words of God himself through the Prophets and Apostles.
Historical Lutheranism holds to this authority because it recognizes the source of that authority. The final referee for all matters of faith and life is none other than God. Still further, it can be clearly and uniquely seen that God is manifest and knowable in Jesus Christ, to which the Scriptures bear witness. This witness to Jesus Christ and the proclamation of his gospel is its heart and soul. The writers of Scripture were not merely inspired secretaries like puppets on a string taking heavenly shorthand. In communicating matters of faith, the doctrines of salvation and God’s divine plan for mankind and creation, the Scriptures, in their communication of faith to us, do not err. They are a complete, authoritative, and trustworthy communication of faith. Thus, for the Christian, the authority of the Bible is the authority of none other than God Himself.
But even still further, the question of authority has to be answered on the individual level, and in such, we can either approach the Scriptures from a hermeneutic of suspicion or a hermeneutic of trust. Approaching from a hermeneutic of trust is to see with the eyes of faith – seeing God working through the thread of human history. This is the trust Scripture builds and demands of anyone who approaches it for investigation. Approaching from a hermeneutic of suspicion, using the historical-critical method, however, one quickly finds that it is a book that defies rational comprehension. It is indifferent to social standing, educational level, or faculty status. It merely says to anyone, whoever you are, if you do not repent and believe the testimony laid down in this book concerning God and his Christ, you are condemned already. But the good news of the gospel is that this need not be the end. It requires the eyes of faith, without them, one can only shake their head and wonder at it. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). So whether through the eyes of trust or through the eyes of suspicion, Scripture refuses to be understood solely as an ancient relic or laboratory specimen. It is the very word of God, and it is a living document that will have a person’s heart and soul.
References
Abraham, William J. 1981. The Divine Inspiration of Holy Scripture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Althaus, Paul. 1966. The Theology of Martin Luther. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Bloesch, Donald G. 1994. Holy Scripture. Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Boettner, Loraine. 1940. The Inspiration of the Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Braaten, Carl E., Gerhard O. Forde, and Philip J. Hefner. 1984. Christian Dogmatics. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Harrisville, Roy A. 1995. The Loss of Biblical Authority and Its Recovery. In Reclaiming the Bible for the Church. Eds. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jensen. 47-61. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Kantzer, Kenneth S. 1960. The Authority of the Bible. In The Word for This Century, Ed. Merrill C. Tenney, 21-51. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kreeft, Peter and Ronald K. Tacelli. 1994. Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Luther, Martin. 1961. Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual, and Hyperlearned. In Luther’s Works. V 39. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Pieper, Francis. 1950. Christian Dogmatics. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Richardson, Alan. 1947. Christian Apologetics. London: S.C.M. Press LTD.
Tappert, Theodore, ed. 1959. Book of Concord. The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
The Holy Spirit. 1982. The Holy Bible. New International Version. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.