I am quite hesitant to begin blogging through my seminary class notes on Bibliology — the Study of the Bible.
Why?
Because Bibliology is dangerous. It lays traps and creates a labyrinth from which it is very hard to escape. I’ve been trapped in a certain Bibliology for about thirteen years, and in many ways, I feel I am just starting to escape. I would hate to trap anybody else. Of course, maybe I’m entering a new labyrinth and don’t even know it…
Let me back up….
The problem with Bibliology (and Systematic Theology in general) is that the questions it asks are loaded questions. In legal terms, the questions would be considered “leading the witness.” This is a dangerous thing to do when the “witness” is the Word of God.
Here is how Bibliology works:
A theologian (like a lawyer) wants to prove a certain point to the judge and jury. So to prove that point, he calls forward a witness which he views as the ultimate authority — Scripture, the very Word of God.
But the judge and jury are not ready to accept the authority of Scripture. They doubt the credibility of the witness. So the theologian has to back up and make an argument for the authority of Scripture. This is what Bibliology is. It is an attempt to prove the accuracy, authority, and credibility of Scripture.
This seems like a good thing to do until you realize that the people trying to prove these things have an agenda. They are not unbiased. They are lawyers wanting to win their case. They want to “stack the deck” in such a way that if you accept what they say about the accuracy, authority, and credibility of Scripture, then you will most likely also accept their interpretation and understanding of Scripture (what the witness says), if you do this, then you will also buy into the rest of their theological system that they were trying to prove in the first place.
It should not surprise you that many of the famous theologians throughout history were also lawyers. They knew how to make their case to a jury — by creating a framework for the jury through which they will be compelled to agree with the perspective and argument of the lawyer/theologian.
The framework which forms the foundation and basis for all theology is Bibliology (and the accompanying Hermeneutics, which are the rules of interpreting Scripture). If you agree with a person’s view of Scripture, and you agree with their rules of interpreting Scripture, you will also agree with them in almost everything relating to their theology.
So by way of example, let’s say a person wants to prove that God sends people to burn forever in the flames of hell. To do this, they first have to prove that this is the way God is. To prove that, they have to prove that this is how God is described in Scripture. And to prove that, they have to not only prove the accuracy and authority of Scripture, but also the specific rules of interpreting and understanding Scripture which will eventually lead you to the the view of God and hell that they are trying to prove.
You see how this works?
And like it or not, this is true of all theology. One’s view of Scripture (Bibliology) and one’s rules for interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics) form the foundation on which the rest of theology is built.
So why am I hesitant to launch into a review of my seminary notes on Bibliology? For three reasons:
Bibliology has Traps
The Bibliology I learned in Bible College and Seminary lays some dangerous traps. I don’t want any of you, my wonderful, online friends, to get trapped. To counteract this, as I blog through my notes, I will attempt to point out the traps as best I can.
My Bibliology is Changing
The problem with me pointing out the traps is that in so doing, I may be laying new traps. You see, my Bibliology has gone through some seismic shifts over the past five years, and I am not sure that my new Bibliology is correct. I have barely begun to test it, and as I do, something gets “tweaked” on it almost every single day. One of these days, I might find myself in another trap, or experience another seismic shift, and realize all my “tweaks” were horribly wrong.
But this time around, I have something going for me which I didn’t have the last time. This time, I am fully aware that — just like every other theologian — I have my own theological agenda. The problem is that I am just not yet fully sure what my agenda is. I am trying to tip my hand as much as I can so you don’t walk into any Bibliology trap which I might be laying unaware. But still, I don’t want to lead anyone off a cliff.
Which brings me to my third reason for being hestitant.
Bibliology Brings out the Name-Callers
I’m tired of being called a heretic, apostate, and reprobate by people who disagree. I know it’s going to happen, but that doesn’t mean I like it.
I don’t mind if you disagree. But if you do, rather than condemn me to the pit of hell for being of the spirit of the antichrist, can we at least have a cordial conversation first? I am open to learning from others, and I will admit anywhere I have gone wrong, but I learn best from people who also want to learn. If you don’t want to learn, well, in the words of my friend “Sam“, you should probably just donate your computer to Goodwill.
So, this is my introductory post to Bibliology. Did I scare you off? I hope not!
Want to learn more about the Bible?
Do you want to learn more about Scripture, and the theological terms and ideas related to the Bible? In theological circles, we call this "Bibliology," which is a fancy term for "the study of the Bible." Regardless, here are some more posts on the Bible to inform and challenge your thinking about Scripture.
- Toward a New View on Biblical Inerrancy
- Bibliology is Dangerous
- Hearing from God
- Dueling Revelations
- Scripture vs. Science - Who Wins?
- Revelation is like a Bouquet of Roses
- Seminary Class Notes on Revelation
- Seminary Class Notes on Special Revelation
- How You Can Know the Bible is Divine Revelation
Posts about Inspiration
- Inspiration of Scripture
- Views on the Inspiration of Scripture
- I Don't Believe in the Inspiration of Scripture
- One Verse Doctrines
- The Uninspired History of Inspiration
- Is All Scripture God-Breathed?
- A New Take on 2 Timothy 3:16
- Is the Doctrine of Inspiration Biblical?
- The Bible is not a Magic Book
- Jesus Condemns Bible Study
- Debating Inspiration with Myself
- Why the King James Version is an Inspired Translation
- What is the Best Bible Translation?
- The Inspiration of Nature
- Most Inspired Comments
- The Bible is Inspired ... and so are other religious writings. Wait. WHAT?
- 4 Shocking Reasons the Bible is Unique (Part 1)
- 4 Shocking Reasons the Bible is Unique (Part 2)
- 4 Shocking Reasons the Bible is Unique (Part 3)
- 4 Shocking Reasons the Bible is Unique (Part 4)
- The God-Ordained Scriptures (and other writings)
Posts about Inerrancy
- I am Always Right
- Seminary Notes on Inerrancy of Scripture
- How to Solve Bible Difficulties
- Arguments Against Inerrancy
- The Bible Contains Errors
- Why Inerrancy Doesn't Matter (Too much)
- Is the Bible a Fable?
- What if the Bible is a Myth?
- This Post is Perfectly Inerrant
The Canon of Scripture
- Seminary Notes on the Canonization of Scripture
- Questioning the Canon of Scripture
- How the Early Church Undermined Inerrancy
- JEDP Hypothesis, Q Theory, and the Critical Text! Oh My!
On Sola Scriptura
How to Study and Obey the Bible
- The Problem with the Bible
- Why Was the Bible Written?
- How is the Bible True?
- The Bible Was not Written to You
- Stop Living Like Jesus
- Stop Obeying the Bible
- The Impossibility of Properly Understanding Scripture
- The Holy Bible is not so Holy
- The Theological Light at the End of the Tunnel
- Making Sense of the Bible
- The More I Study the Bible
- Why Nobody Believes the Bible ... Not Even You
- Shotgun Hermeneutics
- Jesus as the Hermeneutical Trump Card in Scripture
- The Cross as the Absolute Center of Scripture, Life, and Theology
If you have questions about how we got the Bible or how to understand Scripture, please leave them in the comment section below!
Jeremy,
You are even called a heretic, for wanting to return to a more biblical use of the word heresy.
I see this as a real problem with any division of theology. Those writing the rules all have some personal agenda. They are all convinced of their own absolute “rightness” and the rest of the theological world’s “wrongness”. They lay out the rules in such a way that only they can be right. I am not sure that there is a way around this though, because even attempting to delve into a theology without an agenda is kind of an agenda itself.
I really do think that it is easier to just cling to your understanding, cherry-pick scripture to support your position, and condemn anyone who sees it differently to hell, than to really approach theological developement with an open mind.
BTW – I love the comment about Goodwill. It was really a well placed shot.
FedEx,
President,
Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry
Good points all around.
I must be careful though, for I’m pretty sure I have an agenda too. It is just hard to see sometimes what it is….
And if it hard for me to see, I suppose I should give grace to others, that maybe they don’t see their own agenda.
Jeremy,
At least you admit that you have an agenda.
We all do. – even though we might deny…
CD
No way are you a heretic, apostate or reprobate!
People who are attempting “to prove the accuracy, authority, and credibility of Scripture” often have an agenda. I think of it as “arguing backwards”. They have some “pet” doctrines or beliefs, and really want to “prove” them using the Bible, “interpreted” using their system.
An extensive study of how the particluar writings that were included in what we call the Bible were chosen, and who chose them is enlightening. Has Christianity throughout the centuries considered these the only inspired writings? Are they unchanged from what the original authors wrote? Are we really certain who wrote some of them?
My relationship with God is not predicated on an extremely literal, inerrant understanding of Scripture. Scripture is a written record, not a relationship. Should the autographs of a group of NT books, for example, someday be found hidden in a monastery wall, and those authograps be found to differ significantly from what we find in our Bibles, my faith would not be affected.
The statement “If we can’t trust the Bible, then what can we trust?” tells me lots more about the person who is speaking than about the Bible or God.
Sam,
You are probably further down the road then I am, but I think you will like this series on Bibliology. It sounds like you will be able to help me think through some of the “traps” that have been hidden.
Feel free to poitn them out as you see them.
ask away, Re; YHVH “words true?” IF we accept the inerrency of scripture via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and that every word by every writer was written concursvively albeit a few wierd exceptions,
Elias,
I believe in inerrancy and inspiration. I just have a slight nuance on it. I will try to explain it in a later post in my bibliology series.
I believe in the inerrancy of the autographs (original documents), many people and denominations may hold up only the words in red, or only the Pauline letters and even more hold up the OT law as for Christians today. Those things are what seem to be causing infighting. Others hold traditions up as authoritave ,Zwingli as authoritave, Calvin or Luther as authoritave and even John Smith or Chales Taze Russell as authoritave. When ever we take a man’s interpretation over the Word’s own interpretation, it can be tricky.
continued,finger of god, writ in the dust etc seven letters dictated,
oops again, then if it said G-d spoke then G-d spoke inerrent through the writer which we may believe in the same way we believe the more sure word of prophecy,the gospel itself ,foolishness to those perishing and so on,… does it give me words to live by, then the answer to your question and my application in my own life the answer would have to be Yes. No where else to go except the wide path and all them rabbit trails. I believe G-d resonds to great faith if we are willing to pay the price and for Job it was big. Job is avery important book in that God actually describes H-mself to us even beyond Job for we are privy to a glimpse into the heavenlies. I mean G-d playing poker with the devil and poor Job going what? what? So what do you think is going on behind the scenes in your life. You can bet the enemy is up their accusing you which only glorifies G-d’s grace all the more.be blessed.
Mishpakha,
J,I read the the blog twice,so here is my opine. So theology is a minefield,such is life. We are all adults here. Spit out the bones lest you choke. It would seem that the theological
game of my doctrine can beat up your doctrine is perhaps agenda
driven( insert sarcastic comment here). If said doctrine is a conclusion, then there is a premise grounded in one’s pre-supposition. (thank you Cornelius Van Till).
Theological constructs are erected in a manner dependent on the systemic approach one choses to engage in(and becomes wedded to pun intended), so for all intents and purposes the boundaries of said systems become the expression of it’s inherent pre-suppositional context. (“see my karma just ran over my dogma”)
There are a a variety of ways to cut the theological cake(s), but derive from established particulars. Rather than try to explain them,(OMG)better to quote some timeless and tested exponents.
The MENU:
Mr. Eliphaz the empiricist ” according to what I have SEEN”
Mr.Bildad the rationalist “they will teach you with words from their MINDS.”
Mr.Zophar the mystic ” that G-d might speak and show you H-s
SECRETS.”
Mr. Elihu the fideist “my words come from my upright heart,..and utter PURE knowledge”
MR. YHVH aka I AM “Who is this(are these) who darkens COUNSEL with words without knowledge.” THEREFORE;
“my wrath is kindled against you because you have not spoken of ME what is true.
Presuming familiarity with the HISTORICAL story in which these characters and their attempts at theological explanations of the plot line occurs you will recall it ended well.
Deut:29-29 !!!
A child of five would understand this. Quick send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho M. famous Jewish Philosopher
Elias,
Are even those words of YHVH “true”? Or are they just the perspective of the author of Job coming through?
The book of Job has been on my mind a lot the last few years, which is why I’m asking.
Very well said, you’re still gonna burn though 🙂
All joking aside, I feel my walk with Christ has been stunted by Bibliology. The best part about being “Churchianity free” for the past 6 years is I’m seeing the bible in a whole new way, without any preconceived notions, or biases. Sure, I will always have biases, but at least not as many as when I was in the system. My whole view of the End Times changed about 3 years into my new walk. I started writing a book but gave up, so instead I’m rewriting it as blog posts. Before I used to primarily only read and buy books on the “required reading list”. (Do you believe “Prayer of Jabez” was on that list???), it takes years of detox, as we’ve spoken about before. I’m falling in love with Christ all over again, but for different reasons now!
It does take years to detox. I might be a bit behind you on the journey, but am traveling it with you. Like you, I am learning to read Scripture and hang out with Jesus in a whole new way that I never knew before!
Thanks Jeremy. A timely reminder to avoid making a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Scripture! I like the comment of Hans de Ries, talking about a particular Christian confession – that it was ‘subject to improvement’. Shalom, Phil
Phil,
Hilarious. That does seem to be the Holy Trinity of many people.
Jeremy,I was not raised in any ‘christianism or”churchianity” Christ came into our lives(wife too) late. I was literally “snatched from the fire” I suppose miraculously.( I don’t like that word,..if sovreign Adonai is doing it then it is the most natural expression of the source of being and everthing else has a generous helping of fallen delusion.) During my years when music was my idol I saw the world,belly of the beast up close and personal. I enjoy Christian fellowship all the more,even though I am at times around some very smart and knowledge, very naive people. There are a lot of hurting, lost and probably doomed people in the world. Christian persecution is at an all time high. For me that is where the action is and no one there will ever let you get away with playing church ” Mr. Dillinger” Why do you rob banks?” ” Cuz dat’s where the money is.”
Elias,
Great story about Dillinger!
looking forward Shalom
tricky,…… to say the least, and double ditto,..
In response to Ant, I agree to a point as regards interpretation but the ‘interpretation’ and the multiple points of view apply within the canon as well as beyond it. When God pursues genocide against the Canaanites in one place and is the God and Father of Jesus, Prince of Peace, in another then we have a problem. I don’t believe in inerrancy. I don’t think that’s the same thing as saying that hermeneutics are a subjectivist scrum, though. I have a rather long post on God’s violence in the OLd Testament, which touches on some of the issues: http://radref.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-many-dead-canaanites-does-it-take.html
Shalom, phil
Phil, I have just blogged a paper I wrote in Seminary which dealt with your blog post:
http://antwrites.com/2011/07/08/how-could-a-god-of-love-order-the-genocide-of-the-canaanites/
Ooooh. Look at that! Dueling posts! I love it. I will try to come read them both.
Hmmm, duel by blogging! Actually, my Canaanite piece comes with a little appendix (http://radref.blogspot.com/2011/03/shopping-trolley-theology.html) that describes it as a ‘trolley crash of a post’.
Thanks Ant, I don’t go much for duels either. Being a nonviolent Mennonite type I wouldn’t put up much of a fight.
Hehe, it’s not really a duel..I went throught eh same issues myself, and when I finally “got it”, I felt like offering it to another brother would help, but, touché 🙂
I’ve been saying I’ve become more and more anabaptist in my walk. Not that I was a bruiser or anything. 😉
Hi Jeremy, firstly thank you for having the courage of your convictions and running with them! Thank you for listening and acting, when others heard, but said and did nothing when they were asked to by the advocate! Thank you for educating me and teaching me and filling in the gaps in my own understanding and answering some of my long held and difficult questions! Thank you for being a faithful man of God who has not shrunk back from the hard road.
I am sure that part of the reason you are attacked and maligned is because you are right on the money and have touched a collective spiritual nerve.
Yes, this discussion has been rumbling along in the church for centuries, but now there is a fresh urgency to the dialogue which I believe men like yourself have been commissioned to put into words! The sad part, is that the inquisitors are still out there and are still convinced their brand of Christianity is all.
The early church leaders wrote down (eventually!), what they believed God was saying to them and we have received the benefit of that. They challenged us to think and act freely under the direction and leading of Jesus….I think they would have been surprised by how the church over the years has interpreted what they wrote and would probably be blogging the same things you are in bringing the discussion back to one place…. the foot of the cross.
Unless we hear what the spirit is saying to us (and I thank God you and men like you are at the vanguard of His purpose), then we risk missing the point and the direction He is leading His body!
The wind is beginning to shift; it will bring storms and calamity. We may not have the opportunity to talk again when it does. Remain in Him as He remains in you, He knows what your agenda is that is why He chooses to speak to you about it! Continue to bring truth and vision whilst you can. Be blessed, man of God and know you are a good and faithful servant.
Jeremy,
Have to admit this post(‘Bibliology is Dangerous’) is intriguing. Looking forward to reading more of what you have to say on the topic.
Honest question here. If the words of Job quoting YHVH as you say(or rhetorically pose) simply his own perspective(which could be correct or incorrect) what makes the Book of Job different than a book on spirituality by Billy Graham, Norman Vincent Peale, Mother Theresa, or Father Thomas Hopko? What reason would there be for keeping it in the canon?
These posts were from about 6 years ago or so, which means the follow-up posts are already published. Check the archives to see the others.
As for Job, the book of Job reveals a spiritual truth that most teachers do not know or teach. This is what makes it revelation.
Jeremy i have wondered for a while for what purpose did God test Job and i believe it is pride it seems to run through the whole bible we all have a bit of sinner and a bit of self righteousness that is why when trouble comes our first response why me Lord what did i ever do.. .
Job thought he had a good case to argue before God but the heart of it is our hearts are deceitfully wicked no matter how good we have lived we are still sinners and certainly do not deserve the grace of God.In the book of Job there are some real jewels especially why we do suffer satans plan is to destroy us but Gods plan is to build our faith hope and love towards him in our time of suffering.brentnz
Hi everyone,
This is a great website!
What a great way for disciples of Jesus to grow together.
Jeremy: Thanks for preparing and facilitating.
Best,
Gary
Southern NH, USA
Glad you found it! 😉
Hi Jeremy; Thanks for this. Some time back I told a friend of mine I ‘softened my view of women in ministry’. His response totally surprised me, ‘yes, it’s good you are not legalistic in such matters’. WHAT?!…I thought I was simply being “Biblical”. So here’s the problem, “Being Biblical, IS being legalistic. Why? Because this assumes, my understanding of “Biblical” is the same as God’s. If this is “God’s understanding”, well…we better conform, right? All this comes from the view of inerrancy; and the Bible can be searched, and the resulting answers are the definitive view of God’s instructions for every culture and circumstance. This then changes the Bible (which, in it’s present form and importance, Jesus never promised us). Instead, He promised us the Holy Spirit to guide us into the right truth. The Bible is a wonderful gift to the Church, but still it must be relegated to a complement to, not a substitute for Divine guidance. Systematic theology is the great thief of Divine guidance, our faith must ultimately choose between the two. However, if we do, we will be called ‘heretic’.
Peter, I have missed your insightful comments. Yes, we have made the Bible something it was never intended to be. It is easy to replace the Holy Spirit which what we suppose the Bible “says” (meaning that is what we think God is saying). In spite of a distance of almost two thousand years, different languages and cultures, and thousands of miles from where these books were written, we suppose we know exactly what they say on any and all topics. Yes, yes, I understand – We can hold the Bible in our hands, read it in our own language, look up the meaning of any word we may not understand in Webster’s, and then we know what God has to say. On the other hand that Spirit and Jesus stuff – They’re not here. Must be off somewhere in heaven or someplace. We’ve never seen them. Or heard them. We may tell people we have, but we know we haven’t. But the Bible is here, and we can make it prove almost anything. And who can contradict what God says? ( The “Bible card” 🙂 )
Thanks for the great comment, Peter. I still have high regard for Scripture, as I know you do too, and view it as authoritative, though not as many people understand it. My view is close to that of NT Wright, who says that the Bible is authoritative the way the first four acts of a five-act play are authoritative in helping us know how to improvise the fifth act. We following the themes and trends that were presented, but we don’t feel like the fifth act must exactly copy the first four acts. That would be silly.
Anyway, many of the traditional terms to describe the Bible are just not helpful anymore as we begin to think more carefully about what the Bible is and is not. But you are right. The Holy Spirit is our primary (and authoritative) Guide.
All I could think of reading this was:
“In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right,
until someone comes forward and cross-examines.”
-Proverbs 18:17
Also, rule one of hermeneutic is definition. For example, if you look up the plain meaning of the greek word appollumi, which is often translated death, destruction and perish, in a greek lexicon, you’ll understand why the translators translated the words as “death”, “destruction” and “perish”. But, churches translate those words as not dead but burning forever in spite of what my Bible says. However, Matthew 25, Revelation 14 and Revelation 20:10 seem to contradict the idea of hell being literal death. So, the annihilationists take the translation of death, destruction and perish quite literally and go with an alternate view of the clobber passages. While, the eternal conscious torment people take their clobber passages quite literally and go with an alternate view of all the death, destruction and perish passages. Of course, I can see how you arrive at your view as well. And that’s just the first rule, leaving out all the other helpful ones like logic and context. I really don’t think the issue of hell is as clear cut as churches often teach even when you try to apply the proper rules of hermeneutics.
Excellent point. Like you, I know that defining words is extremely important. That is one reason I am teaching “The Gospel Dictionary” online course … and one of the words I define in it is appollumi.