A LAYMAN SPEAKS,
SOME VIEWS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PULPIT
J. Philip Landis, BSEE MIT 1948
Prepared for WCTS Meeting November 14, 2001
In developing theories and laws in any field of knowledge, one must base one's thinking on available data. In the case of the development of Judeo-Christian theology, the primary data sources have been the Hebrew Scriptures, the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Roman Catholicism has recently proclaimed:
Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures. [VATICAN II (1962-1965) DEI VERBUM II (November 18, 1965 as quoted in CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Liguori 1994]
Congregationalists had earlier said:
All things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observe, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. [WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH (1646) I.VII]
These statements seem to indicate two common points of view:
1. The principal business of Christianity is salvation
2. The authoritative source of guidance to salvation is Scripture.
This apparent agreement is immediately muddied by the fact that the two groups fail to recognize the same writings as sacred Scripture, Protestants rejecting the Deuterocanonical books (the Apocrypha) of the Old Testament. This difference in acceptance raises the question concerning the reliability of the choices of the literature to be considered canonical. It was a human choice. Did either group choose a correct canon?
Looking at the problem broadly, we seem to be confronted with a series of questions concerning Scripture.
1. Is there indeed a body of literature truly inspired by God?
2. If so, how is a choice of truly inspire work to be made from the large field of literature professing to be so? (Both the Koran and the Book of Mormon make stronger claims in this regard than the Jewish and Christian scriptures.)
3. And If a choice can be made, how does one deal with the obvious inconsistencies in the text?
4. Have the religious groups indeed based their theologies on these Scriptures as they claim to have done?
Divine inspiration... has it not been the subject of almost unlimited deliberation? Is it real, and if so, how is it to be interpreted? The Bible makes little claim to such status. Only 2 Timothy 3:16 does so at all, and this is vague as to the meaning of inspiration, and when written, presumably referred to the Hebrew Scriptures. By some, inspired writings are thought to be self-verifying. In the case of codes of moral and ethical behavior, such verification might reasonably be claimed. These codes indeed function to enhance human relationships and (in modern lingo) improve the quality of life. Writings purporting to reveal the nature or workings of God or other heavenly activities are quite another matter. They are largely Immune to any process of verification. One has to be skeptical of writings of this type which cast God in the image of man, and frequently of man not at his best.
The body of literature from which a choice could be made was extremely large. The canonical (ultimately), OT Pseudepigraphal, and NT Apocryphal literature surely constituted a big pot from which to select. This material ranges from the ridiculous to the sublime, and one has to wonder if there is truly a boundary, within which the Holy Spirit was at work and outside of which he was not. The establishment of a boundary appears to have been an entirely human effort, or if guided by the Holy Spirit, why did Catholics and Protestants receive different guidance? One has to think that the difference had more to do with Luther's attitude toward purgatory than to the Holy Spirit.
Assuming our present canon indeed represents the best writings to be had, we are then confronted with the self-negating character of the texts owing to demonstrable errors and contradictions. The CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (see above) has some advice in this regard.
Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture [page 32].
Likewise the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION:
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. [1. IX]
The writer takes these to mean that one's interpretation should be tempered by how any given passage coheres with the whole (no cherry picking!). Elsewhere in this paper is some discussion of the degree to which the historical church seems to have strayed from this advice. Some very major theology is based on odd bits not supported by the tenor of the whole.
Scripture, as we have it. Is a splendid collection of some of the finest insights of the human mind into the realm of the divine. While not written to the standards of modern history, it includes a historical record without which the world would be much poorer. It has been the source of consolation, guidance, and inspiration for countless readers through the centuries. Its enormous worth is unquestioned. The question being asked here is whether it can properly serve, or was ever intended to serve, as the foundation for the particular theological edifice which Christian Orthodoxy has erected upon it.
And have Jews and Christians truly built their religious positions entirely on the Scriptures. It seems not; the Jews have their Oral Law and the Christians have the Church Fathers. The former, by some, is purported to have been received at Mount Sinai along with the Written Law, and is therefore of equal weight. The latter seem to be quoted with a frequency approaching that of Scripture in treatises on Christian theology and Christology. For example, the Index of Citations in the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH contains the same number of pages (II) devoted to the "Ecclesiastical Writers" as to the Gospels. Augustine almost equals Mark (1.25 pages vs. 1.5 pages).