Biblicism

Outline.

1. Defining Biblicism.

2. The Problem of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism.

3. Excursus: Pluralism, A Problem for the Reformation and Rome.

4. The Christocentric Hermeneutic: A Tentative Solution?

5. Embracing Ambiguity: A Tentative Solution?

6. Unity.

7. The Relation Between Christ and the Scriptures.

1. Defining Biblicism. Return to Outline.

Matthew Barrett:

To be Protestant is to believe in biblical authority. However, biblical authority and biblicism are not synonymous. Biblicism moves beyond believing in the final authority of the Bible to imposing a restrictive hermeneutical method onto the Bible. Biblicism can be identified by the following symptoms:

     (1) Ahistorical mindset: Biblicism is a haughty disregard (chronological snobbery in the words of C. S. Lewis) for the history of interpretation and the authority of creeds and confessions, chanting an individualistic mantra, “No creed but the Bible,” which in practice translates into “No authority but me.” Sola scriptura is radicalized into solo scriptura. As a result, biblicism fails to let theology inform exegesis, which is designed to guard against heresy.

     (2) Irresponsible proof texting: Biblicism treats Scripture as if it is a dictionary or encyclopedia, as if the theologian merely excavates the right proof texts, chapter and verse, tallying them up to support a doctrine. Biblicism limits itself to those beliefs explicitly laid down in Scripture and fails to deduce doctrines from Scripture by good and necessary consequence.

     (3) Anti-metaphysics: Biblicism undervalues the use of philosophy in the service of exegesis and theology. Biblicism is especially allergic to metaphysics, failing to understand how the study of being should safeguard who God is (e.g., pure act) in contrast to the creature. As a result, biblicism conflates theology and economy, as if who God is in himself can be read straight off the pages of Scripture when these pages are often focused on historical events.

     (4) Univocal predication: Biblicism assumes language used of God in the text should be applied to God in a direct fashion, as if the meaning of an attribute predicated of man has the same meaning when predicated of God. By consequence, biblicism risks historicizing God by means of a literalistic interpretation of the text.

     (5) Restrictive revelation: Biblicism is a suspicion or even dismissiveness toward the diverse ways God’s has revealed himself, limiting itself to the book of Scripture while shunning the book of creation. Biblicism is often suspicious towards natural theology.

     (6) Overemphasis on the human author: Biblicism neglects the divine author’s intent and ability to transcend any one human author. As a result, biblicism struggles to explain the unity of the canon and Christological fulfillment, nor does it provide the metaphysic necessary to explain attributes of Scripture like inspiration and inerrancy.

(Matthew Barrett, The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2023], p. 21.) Preview.

John M. Frame:

The term “biblicism” is usually derogatory. It is commonly applied to (1) someone who has no appreciation for the importance of extrabiblical truth in theology, who denies the value of general or natural revelation, (2) those suspected of believing that Scripture is a “textbook” of science, or philosophy, politics, ethics, economics, aesthetics, church government, etc., (3) those who have no respect for confessions, creeds, and past theologians, who insist on ignoring these and going back to the Bible to build up their doctrinal formulations from scratch, (4) those who employ a “proof texting” method, rather than trying to see Scripture texts in their historical, cultural, logical, and literary contexts.

     I wish to disavow biblicism in these senses.

(John M. Frame, Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense, [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997], Appendix 2: Sola Scriptura in Theological Method, pp. 176-177.)

Herman Bavinck:

Scripture is not a legal document, the articles of which only need to be looked up for a person to find out what its view is in a given case. It is composed of many books written by various authors, dating back to different times and divergent in content. It is a living whole, not abstract but organic. It nowhere contains a sketch of the doctrine of faith; this is something that has to be drawn from the entire organism of Scripture. Scripture is not designed so that we should parrot it but that as free children of God we should think his thoughts after him. But then all so-called presuppositionlessness and objectivity are impossible. So much study and reflection on the subject is bound up with it that no person can possibly do it alone. That takes centuries. To that end the church has been appointed and given the promise of the Spirit’s guidance into all truth. Whoever isolates himself from the church, i.e., from Christianity as a whole, from the history of dogma in its entirety, loses the truth of the Christian faith. That person becomes a branch that is torn from the tree and shrivels, an organ that is separated from the body and therefore doomed to die. Only within the communion of the saints can the length and the breadth, the depth and the height, of the love of Christ be comprehended (Eph. 3:18). Add to this that the proponents of this school forget that the Christian faith is universal; it can and must enter into all forms and conditions. They oppose grace to nature in a hostile fashion and do not sufficiently take account of the incarnation of the Word. For just as the Son of God became truly human, so also God’s thoughts, incorporated in Scripture, become flesh and blood in the human consciousness. Dogmatics is and ought to be divine thought totally entered into and absorbed in our human consciousness, freely and independently expressed in our language, in its essence the fruit of centuries, in its form contemporary (Da Costa).

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 1: Prolegomena, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], §. 22, p. 83.)

Cf. Herman Bavinck:

     Holy Scripture is no dogmatics. It contains all the knowledge of God we need but not in the form of dogmatic formulations. The truth has been deposited in Scripture as the fruit of revelation and inspiration, in a language that is the immediate expression of life and therefore always remains fresh and original. But it has not yet become the object of reflection and has not yet gone through the thinking consciousness of the believer. Here and there, for example in the letter to the Romans, there may be a beginning of dogmatic development, but it is no more than a beginning. The period of revelation had to be closed before that of dogmatic reproduction could start. Scripture is a gold mine; it is the church that extracts the gold, puts its stamp on it, and converts it into general currency.

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 1: Prolegomena, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], §. 36, p. 116.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     Or if anyone should think this is untrue, I am not going to quarrel about it. After all, I am clearly dealing with Christians, who rejoice over their knowing the holy scriptures without human guidance; and if that is the case, it is a genuine good they are rejoicing over, one quite out of the ordinary. So let them grant me that each one of us, from earliest childhood, has had to learn our own language by constantly hearing it spoken, and has acquired a knowledge of any other language, whether Hebrew or Greek, or any of the rest, either in the same way by hearing it spoken, or from a human teacher. So now then, if you agree, let us advise all our brothers and sisters not to teach their small children these things, because after all it was in a single instant of time, with the coming of the Holy Spirit, that the apostles were filled and spoke in the tongues of all nations; or else none of us who have not experienced such things should consider ourselves to be Christians, or to have received the Holy Spirit.

     But no, on the contrary, let us not be too proud to learn what has to be learned with the help of other people, and let those of us by whom others are taught pass on what we have received without pride and without jealousy.

(Augustine, Teaching Christianity (De Doctrina Christiana), Prologue, §. 5; trans. WSA, I/11:102. Cf. NPNF1, 2:520.) Compare: ccel.org.

Note: Click here for information accurately defining the historical concept of Sola Scriptura.

2. The Problem of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism. Return to Outline.

N. T. Wright:

…it has often been observed that when people who insist on the authority of scripture have things all to themselves—perhaps by leaving a supposedly unbiblical denomination and setting up on their own—they quickly subdivide into those who read the Bible this way against those who read it that way. This itself suggests that an over-hasty appeal to scripture all by itself does not in fact work.

(N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, [New York: HarperOne, 2011], p. 26.)

Christian Smith:

     So the question is this: if the Bible is given by a truthful and omnipotent God as an internally consistent and perspicuous text precisely for the purpose of revealing to humans correct beliefs, practices, and morals, then why is it that the presumably sincere Christians to whom it has been given cannot read it and come to common agreement about what it teaches? I know of no good, honest answer to that question. If the Bible is all that biblicism claims it to be, then Christians—especially those who share biblicist beliefs—ought to be able to come to a solid consensus about what it teaches, at least on most matters of importance. But they do not and apparently cannot.

     Quite the contrary. Christians, perhaps especially biblicist Christians, are “all over the map” on what the Bible teaches about most issues, topics, and questions. In this way, the actual functional outcome of the biblicist view of scripture belies biblicism’s theoretical claims about the Bible. Something is wrong in the biblicist picture that cannot be ignored.

(Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture, [Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2011], p. 26.)

Note: Click here for information regarding the nature of perspicuity.

Kenton L. Sparks:

Even though evangelicals often deny the diversity of Scripture, the theological diversity within evangelicalism is a good and ready indicator of Scripture’s truer nature. Some evangelicals are premillennialists, others amillenialists; some are Arminians, others Calvinists; some evolutionists, others creationists; some require head coverings for women, others do not; some believe that Romans 7 describes a Christian, others that it describes a pagan; some believe in capital punishment, others find it murder. I could of course go on and on with this exercise, but the point is by now evident. It is hardly conceivable that evangelicals could assent to so many differing and contradictory viewpoints if the Bible spoke as clearly and univocally as we are wont to suppose. Like all Christians, evangelicals must navigate the Bible’s diversity by either ignoring certain problem texts or by subordinating them to other texts that strike them as more sensible.

(Kenton L. Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], p. 327.) Preview.

Robert K. Johnston:

     Beyond my desire to address specific theological issues and to suggest directions in which evangelicals might profitably move, I have attempted to give voice in this book to a more basic and persistent concern. That evangelicals, all claiming a common Biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological formulations on many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic nature of their present understanding of theological interpretation. To argue that the Bible is authoritative, but to be unable to come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with those who share an evangelical commitment), is self-defeating. It is this belief which has served as an organizing principle in my writing. It is, I trust, this realization which will also make this study of more lasting value, both among evangelicals and among those seeking to learn from them in the wider Christian fellowship.

(Robert K. Johnston, Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice, [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979], Preface, pp. vii-viii.)

Cf. Robert K. Johnston:

Evangelicals, all claiming a common Biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological formulations on many of the major issues they address—the nature of Biblical inspiration, the place of women in the church and family, the church’s role in social ethics, and most recently the Christian’s response to homosexuality. If evangelicals cannot discover a way to move more effectively toward theological consensus, can they still maintain in good conscience their claim to Biblical authority as a hallmark? Will their distinctive position regarding Biblical authority not die the death of a thousand qualifications?

(Robert K. Johnston, Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice, [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979], Preface, p. 7.)

G. W. Bromiley:

     On the other hand, we have to recognize that the Bible is also a fruitful source of dissension and disunity in and among the churches, so that acceptance of its authority does not solve at once the problem of unity. There is disagreement, for instance, concerning the actual constitution of the Bible, some contending for greater comprehension and others for greater exclusion. The interpretation of the Bible gives rise to a whole series of more or less important and divisive differences. The doctrine of the Bible and its inspiration and authority is another cause of dissension, especially when it is contended by some that the Bible is only one standard of life and faith among others. Minor differences can even arise concerning the particular translations of the Bible to be used; and indeed this is a significant issue in the whole relationship of Romanist and non-Romanist churches. These are obviously very real difficulties which cannot be ignored even if they cannot be fully faced and answered. We have to ask, therefore, how the Bible can be a true focus and means of unity in the practical relationships of the churches when even in this sphere there is the constant bias to disunity.

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], pp. 68-69.)

John Williamson Nevin:

It sounds well, to lay so much stress on the authority of the Bible, as the only text-book and guide of Christianity. But what are we to think of it, when we find such a motley mass of protesting systems, all laying claim so vigorously here to one and the sarne watchword? If the Bible be at once so clear and full as a formulary of Christian doctrine and practice, how does it come to pass that where men are left most free to use it in this way, and have the greatest mind to do so, according to their own profession, they are flung asunder so perpetually in their religious faith, instead of being brought together, by its influence apparently, and, at all events, certainly in its name? It will not do to reply, in the case, that the differences which divide the parties are small, while the things in which they agree are great, and such as to show a general unity after all in the main substance of the Christian life. Differences that lead to the breaking of church communion, and that bind men’s consciences to go into sects, can never be small for the actual life of Christianity, however insignificant they may be in their own nature. Will it be pretended, that the Bible is friendly to sects; that it is designed and adapted to bring them to pass; that they constitute, in short, the normal and healthy condition of Christ’s Church? It is especially worthy of notice, that one great object proposed by all sects, in betaking themselves, as they say, to the exclusive authority of the Scriptures, is to get clear of human dogmas and opinions, and so come the more certainly to one faith and one baptism. They acknowledge the obligation of such unity, and just for this reason call upon the Christian world to come with them to the pure fountain of God’s word, as having, no doubt, that it is to be secured in this way. Winebrennerism, Campbellism, Christianism, &c., are all based, (we doubt not, honestly,) on a design to “restore the original unity of the Church;” and for the accomplishment of this object, they hold it, most of all, necessary, “that the Bible alone should be taken as the authorized bond of union and the infallible rule of faith and practice,” to the full exclusion of every creed or formulary besides. This however, as we have seen, is just what all our sects are eternally admitting and proclaiming as their own principle. There is not one of them, that is not disposed to take the lead, according to its own fancy, in such wholesome submission to the Holy Scriptures; and the great quarrel of each with all the rest is just this, that they are not willing like itself, to sacrifice to this rule all rules and tradition besides. How does it happen then that the sect distraction has not been prevented or healed by this method, but is found to extend itself perpetually in proportion to its free and untrammelled use? When Congregationalism tells us, (p. 201,) that its principle of strict adhesion to the Bible, in the sense now noticed, serves to shut out divisions, it tells us what is palpably contradicted by the whole history of the sect system from beginning to end. However plausible it may be in theory, to magnify in such style the unbound use solely of the Bible for the adjustment of Christian faith and practice, the simple truth is, that the operation of it in fact is, not to unite the church into one, but to divide it always more and more into sects. The thing is too plain to admit any sort of dispute.

(John Williamson Nevin, “The Sect System;” In: The Mercersburg Review: Vol. I.—1849, [Mercersburg: H. A. Mish, 1849], pp. 491-492.)

Richard McNemar:

A thousand reformers like so many moles,

Have plow’d all the bible & cut it in holes

And each has his church at the end of his trace

Built up as he thinks of the subjects of grace 

(Richard McNemar, “The Moles Little Pathway;” In: Daniel W. Patterson, The Shaker Spiritual, [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979], p. 136.)

William Blake:

The Vision of Christ that thou dost see

Is my vision’s greatest enemy.

Thine has a great hook nose like thine;

Mine has a snub nose like to mine.

Thine is the friend of all mankind;

Mine speaks in parables to the blind.

Thine loves the same world that mine hates;

Thy heaven doors are my hell gates.

Socrates taught what Meletus

Loath’d as a nation’s bitterest curse,

And Caiaphas was in his own mind

A benefactor to mankind.

Both read the Bible day and night,

But thou read’st black where I read white.

(William Blake, “The Everlasting Gospel,” Fragment α; In: The Lyrical Poems of William Blake, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1905], p. 110.)

Martin Luther:

I learn now that it is enough to throw many passages together helter-skelter, whether they are fit or not. If this is to be the way, then I can easily prove from the Scriptures that beer is better than wine.

(Martin Luther, “The Papacy at Rome: An Answer to the Celebrated Romanist at Leipzig (1520);” In: Works of Martin Luther: With Introductions and Notes: Volume I, [Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915], pp. 361-362.)

Vincent of Lérins (c. ?-445 A.D.):

…owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.

(Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitory, 2.5; trans. NPNF2, 11:132.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: See further: Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, [Moscow: CanonPress, 2001], pp. 43-45.

Note: Click here for more on the proper/legitimate role of tradition.

Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea Mazaca (c. 330-379 A.D.):

     Liberated from the error of pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness of the good God with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for which Christ died and upon which He poured out in abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree violently with one another and also in their understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so mercilessly rending asunder the Church of God and cruelly confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’

     Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I veered now this way. now that—attracted now to one man, now to another, under the influence of protracted association with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in the words: ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With these words in mind, then, I applied also to the present circumstances that explanation which, incredible and frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is understood; for never before has there arisen such discord and quarreling as now among the members of the Church in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed, abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I pursued my investigation further and became convinced that the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of the others to some one leader was maintained, all was discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting. By the same token, if we discover in our midst such lack of accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become abominable in their ways.’

(Basil the Great, Preface on the Judgment of God; trans. FC, 9:37-39.)

Note: Basil’s proposed solution to this problem of Interpretive Pluralism is to suggest that: “one who examines each word minutely can gain a very accurate knowledge of the meaning of the Holy Scripture, so that there is no excuse for any of us being led astray into the snare of sin by an erroneous belief that some sins are punished, while others may be committed with impunity.” (Basil the Great, Preface on the Judgment of God; trans. FC, 9:48.)

G. L Prestige:

     To sum up briefly the result of the present inquiry, it should be said that the ancient Church regarded the Christian faith as partly a record of facts, partly an interpretation of those facts in the light of experience and of reflection. But the faith did not rest on human authority: the facts were ‘given’ and their meaning was interpreted by inspiration. Though no one theory of inspiration had been worked out, and not even one method of interpretation was universally accepted, nevertheless it would have been asserted by any one without a fear of contradiction that the Christian religion was a revelation made by God to mankind.

(G. L Prestige, Fathers and Heretics: Six Studies in Dogmatic Faith, [London: S.P.C.K., 1948], p. 20.)

3. Excursus: Pluralism, A Problem for the Reformation and Rome. Return to Outline.

Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom:

     A last word on the contemporary situation for Catholics and evangelicals is required concerning the wide diversity now found in both traditions. The time is long past when responsible analysts could speak of either Catholics or evangelicals as a homogenous unit. An awareness of pluralism has been a truism in the discussion of American Protestants since the end of the nineteenth century, but only in recent decades have historians taken seriously the near impossibility of lumping together (as only a partial list) Protestant mainliners, fundamentalists, liberals, Lutheran “evangelical catholics,” Lutheran Americanists, Pentecostals, Disciples of Christ, Plymouth Brethren, and a thousand and one other variations.

     The larger Protestant reality is true also of evangelicals. With no formal structure uniting those who share evangelical faith, with evangelicals strewn across multitudes of denominations, with no institutional voice presuming to speak for or to all evangelical Protestants, with deep theological, ecclesiastical, and social differences dividing evangelicals from one another, it is presumptuous ever to speak casually about a common evangelical attitude toward Catholics or anything else.

     …The same reality is equally true on the other side as well. Despite persisting tendencies, especially among non-Catholics, to speak of a unified Catholic Church, such efforts are nearly as indefensible as applying generalities to Protestants. Catholics do retain a structural unity symbolized by the pope and the church’s hierarchy, but it would be wise for Protestants to let Catholics say what that structure means. Speaking as a Catholic theologian, Richard McBrien once described the current scene as one in which “there are sometimes sharper divisions within the Roman Catholic Church than there are between certain Catholics and certain Protestants.” Sociologist Andrew Greeley (who is also a Catholic priest) has made the same point: “Every generalization about values that begins with the word ‘Catholic’ is likely to be misleading, if not erroneous, precisely because the generalization will mask substantial differences in values that exist among the Catholic subpopulations.” Given the religious pluralism within Christian families, there is much more opportunity now than even fifty years ago to find meaningful fellowship across, as well as significant strife within, traditional evangelical and Catholic communities.

(Mark A. Noll, Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], pp. 225-226, 226-227.)

Cf. Richard P. McBrien (Roman Catholic Theologian):

     But much has happened since that council to suggest that the traditional lines of distinction have been blurred. Is it really so easy to tell the difference between a Roman Catholic and an Anglican, for example? Is it not becoming increasingly evident that there are sometimes sharper divisions within the Roman Catholic Church than there are between certain Catholics and certain Protestants? Anyone who reads the Catholic press in the United States might legitimately wonder if the editors and readers of The Wanderer and the National Catholic Reporter belong to the same Church.

(Richard P. McBrien, “Roman Catholicism: E Pluribus Unum;” In: Religion and America: Spiritual Life in a Secular Age, eds. Mary Douglas, Steven Tipton, [Boston: Beacon Press, 1983], p. 181.)

Cf. Andrew M. Greeley (Roman Catholic Priest):

Every generalization about values that begins with the word “Catholic” is likely to be misleading, if not erroneous, precisely because the generalization will mask substantial differences in values that exist among the Catholic subpopulations.

(Andrew M. Greeley, The American Catholic: A Social Portrait, [New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1977], p. 252.)

Note: If I were to pull a dozen Roman Catholics off the street and ask a single theological question I would likely receive a dozen different answers (just as I would with a dozen Protestants).

Note: According to page 10 of the World Christian Encyclopedia (the source cited by some amateur Roman Catholic internet apologists who assert that there are 33,000 Protestant Denominations, supposedly as a result of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura), in the year A.D. 2000 there were 33,820 denominations/paradenominations within the global Christian (not Protestant) Church; 3,445,000 congregations/churches, composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians, dichotomized into two global categories: 1. Denominationalism, which had 11,830 traditional denominations and 2. Postdenominationalism, which had 21,990 paradenominations/networks. Page 16 of the World Christian Encyclopedia provides the following breakdown for the 11,830 “traditional denominations” figure listed above: Eastern Orthodox—781 denominations; Roman Catholic—242 denominations; Anglican—168 denominations; Protestant—8,973 denominations. This amounts to nine Church “denominations” that affirm Sola Scriptura for every one Church “denomination” that rejects the doctrine. See further: World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001], pp. 10, 16.

4. The Christocentric Hermeneutic: A Tentative Solution? Return to Outline.

John Goldingay:

     Each individual biblical story belongs in the setting of the story as a whole, stretching from Beginning to End, with the Christ event at the center.

(John Goldingay, Models for Interpretation of Scripture, [Grand Rapids William B. Eerdmans, 1995], p. 62.)

Christian Smith:

The Bible is not about offering things like a biblical view of dating—but rather about how God the Father offered his Son, Jesus Christ, to death to redeem a rebellious world from the slavery and damnation of sin. The Bible is not about conveying divine principles for starting and managing a Christian business—but is instead about Christ on the cross triumphing over all principalities and powers and so radically transforming everything we consider to be our business. Scripture, this view helps us to see, is not about guiding Christian emotions management and conquering our anger problems—but is rather about Jesus Christ being guided by his unity with the Father to absorb the wrath of God against sin in his death and conquering the power of sin in his resurrection. Scripture then ceases to be about teaching about biblical manhood and womanhood or biblical motherhood and fatherhood—and becomes instead the story of how a covenant-making and promise-keeping God took on full human personhood in Jesus Christ in order to reconcile this alienated and wrecked world to the eternally gracious Father.

     That is not to say that evangelical Christians will never have theologically informed moral and practical views of dating and romance, business dealings, emotions, gender identities and relations, and parenting. They may and will. But the significance and content of all such views will be defined completely in terms of thinking about them in view of the larger facts of Jesus Christ and the gospel—not primarily by gathering and arranging pieces of scriptural texts that seem to be relevant to such topics in order to pinpoint “the biblical view” on them. Those are two very different kinds of theological exercises that can lead to very different outcomes.

     Real evangelicals will think about the issues and problems they confront in life not by searching a holy handbook for instructions and information but by passing them through the perceptual and mind-transforming “lens” of the fact of the living Jesus Christ and of God’s reconciling the world to himself in Christ. Therefore, for instance, “The central function of the Old Testament may not be there to ‘tell us what to do.’ It may be more a part of a larger story that God brings to an end many hundreds of years later in Christ. And this story, which ends with the incarnation of God’s Son, had an incarnational dimension from the start.”

     I have in my argument been criticizing popular biblicist teachings on cooking, dating, parenting, gardening, marital intimacy, dressing, career development, voting, aging, finance and business management, medicine, science facts, organizational leadership, stress management, and so on. But those are easy targets. Let me now take the Christocentric argument one step further, though more tentatively. It may be not only that God, in giving us the Bible, does not intend through it to inform us about topics like biblical cooking and stress management. It also may be that God does not even intend the Bible to provide us with direct, specific, “nonnegotiable” instructions about things like church polity and government, the “end times,” the ethics of war, divine foreknowledge, the “scientific” aspects of the Genesis creation, the correct modes of baptism, proper elements of correct Christian worship, the exact nature of sanctification, or the destiny of the unevangelized.

     Perhaps those are simply not scripture’s central point. Perhaps at least some of those are what the church has long called “matters of indifference,” adiaphora. Perhaps others of them are subjects about which we are simply not completely informed. Perhaps by making the Bible provide us specific, definite answers to such matters we are forcing the Bible to be something quite other than what it intends to be: a witness to Jesus Christ and the gospel of salvation from sin. Perhaps, if and once people have really grasped the good news of Jesus Christ—what really matters, in light of which anything else must make sense—God is happy to let his people work their lives out in different forms of church government and using different modes of baptism, for example. Perhaps some diversity in such matters is okay. And perhaps God has no interest in providing to us all of the specific information people so often desire about the “end times,” divine foreknowledge, and the destiny of the unevangelized.

     Further, perhaps God wants us to figure out how Christians should think well about things like war, wealth, and sanctification, by thinking christologically about them, more than by simply piecing together this and that verse of scripture into an allegedly coherent puzzle picture. Perhaps a major error of biblicism has been to try to extinguish the large sphere of “things indifferent,” what for Christians truly are adiaphora. Perhaps evangelicals today could recover a truly valid and defensible understanding of how scripture really is authoritative and definitive by first focusing christologically on the scripture’s center as the definitive and nonnegotiable truth and then greatly expanding the boundaries of much of what is left to “things indifferent,” to adiaphora—and then actually behaving as if they really are adiaphora. There seems to be biblical warrant for such an approach (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8; 10:31; Col. 3:17). It would seem to lead to a more genuine Christian unity-in-diversity. And it would certainly help to dissolve much of the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism. At the very least, I suggest that such an approach is well worth evangelicals considering seriously.

     The standard biblicist response to such a suggestion, I am well aware, is that such an approach places the Bible interpreter in the position of having to make judgments, of having to decide what is central and what, by contrast, allows for different understandings and practices (consider again, for example, the charge of “precarious subjectivism” made by G. K. Beale against noninerrantists, noted in chapter 3).

     My reply? Making judgments and decisions? Of course! That is the world in which we have always lived. That is the situation we always find ourselves in, whether we admit it or not. That is a task and responsibility we humans simply cannot escape. It is much better for us to “own” that task and to take responsibility for our active role as interpreters of scripture, always drawing on historical Christian tradition, than to pretend that everything in the Bible—not just the gospel of Jesus Christ, but everything else it says as well—is self-evident, self-interpreting, and perfectly self-consistent, so that we merely need to passively absorb and obey it.

     The standard objection asks, if humans have to actively interpret and make judgments, who will decide and how can we be certain that they will not decide wrongly? Very good questions. But asking those questions does not make the inescapable need to discern, judge, and decide go away. Every reader of the Bible in one way or another ends up actively interpreting, discerning, judging, and deciding all sorts of matters in scripture. The only question is how honest or in denial about that fact we all are. Biblicism is a strategy that pushes us toward denial. I am here suggesting that we accept honesty and responsibility. “But,” the standard objection still presses, “does not this Christocentric and adiaphora approach cast us into ‘subjectivism’? Do not humans then subjectively decide what matters and what doesn’t?”

     Well, yes and no. The hermeneutical approach I am suggesting entails “subjectivism” only to the extent that it acknowledges that all good Bible readers are active subjects seeking to understand the truth, with the Spirit’s help, and that our own minds and spirits necessarily play an active role in that process. That is true about every human scripture reader (and reader of any other text), whether they realize and admit it or not.

     However, what I am suggesting here does not need to become “subjectivism” in the sense of the reading subject acting as the sole arbiter of truth, as if the Bible itself simply becomes putty in the reader’s hands to be molded as the reader wishes. That of course can happen and sometimes does happen—including among biblicists. But simply denying the active interpretive role of the Bible reader as involved subject does nothing to prevent the inescapable and legitimate kind of “subjectivism” to which nobody can or should object. How else could humans possibly know truth, other than to involve themselves as personal subjects in the discerning and understanding of it? Of course that can become “precarious,” as Beale warns. But what else is new about life, even redeemed life, as finite humans in this broken world?

     Biblicism does nothing to eliminate our precarious positions—it merely hides the precarious from us and, in so doing, often makes our positions even more precarious. The bottom line, then: standard biblicist objections to Christocentric biblical hermeneutics—in which human scripture readers actively interpret texts using discernment and judgment about what is central and what are “things indifferent”—simply do not hold water. They are red herrings. There are no other alternatives in reality, and we should not pretend otherwise.

(Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture, [Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2011], pp. 111-114.)

Fisher Humphreys:

     The Southern Baptist Convention first adopted the statement of faith called The Baptist Faith and Message in 1925. When that statement was revised for readoption in 1963, only one major change was made in the article entitled “The Scriptures.” This was the addition of a final sentence which read: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” This is what I mean when I say we should read the Bible in the light of the Gospel. We must give to the Gospel the priority which it deserves. We must read the Bible as those who have faith in Jesus Christ. This is our basic hermeneutical principle: Jesus Christ. If we take Jesus as our criterion for interpreting the Bible, it will not solve all our problems. It will not make interpretation easier or rigorous study less necessary, but it will make our understanding of the Bible more Christian. …More important than anything else we have to say about the Bible is this: we must read it as those who believe that God was in Christ reconciling, listening for God to continue to speak to us.

(Fisher Humphreys, Thinking about God: An Introduction to Christian Theology, [New Orleans: Insight Press, 1974], pp. 50-51, 51.)

G. W. Bromiley:

     Now . . . we must remember that the Bible is not to be abstracted from Christ and made a center of unity in its own right. …unity is grounded in Christ Himself, and that it is served by the Bible when the Bible is understood in clear relationship to Christ as the authoritative prophetic and apostolic testimony. We may go to the Bible with very different views of what it is and how it is to be understood or applied. But if we go primarily to see Christ (John 5:39), i.e., to learn what the Bible has to tell us about Him, and our new life in Him, we shall be brought together at the one true center of the church and its unity. …the Bible must not be abstracted from Christ Himself. It will not be a means or focus of unity merely in virtue of the fact that we are all trying to present biblical truth. But it will certainly be this as we are all trying to present Christ Himself as the Truth attested in the Bible. In relationship to the primary focus, and caught up in the ministry of reconciliation which in its own way the church shares with its incarnate, crucified, and risen Head, it can and will serve as a true subsidiary focus.

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], pp. 69, 71.)

Karl Barth:

The Bible says all sorts of things, certainly; but in all this multiplicity and variety, it says in truth only one thing—just this: the name of Jesus Christ, concealed under the name Israel in the Old Testament, revealed under His own name in the New Testament, which therefore can be understood only as it has understood itself, as a commentary on the Old Testament. The Bible becomes clear when it is clear that it says this one thing: that it proclaims the name Jesus Christ and therefore proclaims God in His richness and mercy, and man in his need and helplessness, yet living on what God’s mercy has given and will give him. The Bible remains dark to us if we do not hear in it this sovereign name, and if, therefore, we think we perceive God and man in some other relation than the one determined once for all by this name. Interpretation stands in the service of the clarity which the Bible as God’s Word makes for itself; and we can properly interpret the Bible, in whole or part, only when we perceive and show that what it says is said from the point of view of that concealed and revealed name of Jesus Christ, and therefore in testimony to the grace of which we as men stand in need, of which as men we are incapable and of which we are made participants by God.

(Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the World of God: Volume I, Second Half-Volume, [Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1963], p. 720.)

John R. W. Stott:

…the Bible is primarily a book neither of science, nor of literature, nor of philosophy, but of salvation.

     In saying this we must give the word ‘salvation’ its broadest possible meaning. Salvation is far more than the forgiveness of sins. It includes the whole sweep of God’s purpose to redeem and restore mankind, and indeed all creation. What we claim for the Bible is that it unfolds God’s total plan.

…The salvation for which the Bible instructs us is available ‘through faith in Christ Jesus’. Therefore, since Scripture concerns salvation and salvation is through Christ, Scripture is full of Christ.

     Jesus Himself thus understood the nature and function of the Bible.

…our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself (in terms of promise and fulfilment) is Scripture’s uniting theme.

(John R. W. Stott, Understanding the Bible, [London: Scripture Union, 1976], pp. 15, 18, 19.)

Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):

     Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,—it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, ‘Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.’ 

(Athanasius of Alexandria, Against the Arians (Orationes Contra Arianos IV), Discourse 3, Chapter 26.29; trans. NPNF2, 4:409.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Melito of Sardis (c. 100-180 A.D.):

The Lord made advance preparation for his own sufferings,

in the patriarchs and in the prophets and in the whole people;

through the law and the prophets he sealed them.

That which more recently and most excellently came to pass

he arranged from of old.

For when it would come to pass it would find faith,

having been foreseen of old.

Therefore, the mystery of the Lord,

prefigured from of old through the vision of a type,

is today fulfilled and has found faith,

For the mystery of the Lord is both new and old;

old with respect to the law,

but new with respect to grace.

Thus if you wish to see the mystery of the Lord,

look at Abel who is likewise slain,

at Isaac who is likewise tied up,

at Joseph who is likewise traded,

at Moses who is likewise exposed,

at David who is likewise hunted down,

at the prophets who likewise suffer for the sake of Christ.

And look at the sheep, slaughtered in the land of Egypt,

which saved Israel through its blood while Egypt was struck down.

(Melito of Sardis, On Pascha, Popular Patristics Series, No. 20, trans. Alistair Stewart-Sykes, [Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001], §§. 57-60, pp. 52-53.)

Peter Enns:

…the principle that “original context matters” must be applied not only to grammar and history but also to the hermeneutics of the New Testament writers. To understand how they handled the Old Testament, which reveals their hermeneutical standards, we must have a sketch of the hermeneutical world in which they lived. Again, as important as the original grammatical-historical context is for understanding ancient texts, so too is the original hermeneutical-historical context important for understanding ancient hermeneutics.

(Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], p. 117.)

Cf. Peter Enns:

Jesus is not saying that there are some interesting Old Testament prophecies that speak of him… Rather, he is saying that all Scriptures speak of him in the sense that he is the climax of Israel’s story.

     The Old Testament as a whole is about him, not a subliminal prophecy or a couple of lines tucked away in a minor prophet. Rather, Christ—who he is and what he did—is where the Old Testament has been leading all along. To see this requires that Christ open our minds as he did the minds of his disciples. In other words, to see how Christ fulfills the Old Testament—the whole story, not just some isolated prophecies—is not simply a matter of reading the Old Testament objectively, but reading it “Christianly,” which is what we see in the New Testament time and time again.

(Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], p. 120.)

Cf. Peter Enns:

…as we attempt to understand Scripture, we move further along the path. At the end of the path is not simply the gaining of knowledge about the text, but God himself who speaks to us therein. The goal toward which the path is leading is that which set us on the path to begin with: our having been claimed by God as coheirs with the crucified and risen Christ. The reality of the crucified and risen Christ is both the beginning and end of Christian biblical interpretation.

(Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005], p. 163.)

Christian Smith:

…the indicative must precede and define the imperative. What we need to do (the imperative) can only ever make sense in terms of the truth about reality (the indicative). The imperative must always be grounded on and operating from within the indicative. The indicative is the risen, living, and reigning Lord, Jesus Christ. Everything else, including imperatives, follows from there. Rather than looking to the Bible for answers to every human-interest imperative question we have, we should set them aside and focus on more seriously grasping the central truths about the indicative facts. Only then will any imperatives cohere and make sense.

(Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture, [Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2011], p. 177.)

5. Embracing Ambiguity: A Tentative Solution? Return to Outline.

1 Corinthians 13:12a:

For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.

(New International Version.)

Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself [Nichts ist so schwer, als sich nicht betrügen].

(Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, eds. G. H. von Wright, Heikki Nyman, trans. Peter Winch, [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980], p. 34c.)

N. T. Wright:

The flying sparks of prayerful interpretation can still, alas, lead us astray. Self-deceit remains a powerful and dangerous possibility…

(N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, [New York: HarperOne, 2011], p. 33.)

Gordon D. Fee:

…the intersection of the eternal word with historical particularity leaves us with far more ambiguities than some feel comfortable with. What do we do with the holy war and the slaughter of nations? How do we reconcile the lament to have Babylonian children’s heads bashed against rocks with God’s abundant mercy? What do we do with the holy kiss, charismatic gifts, head coverings, the mode of baptism, the sovereignty of God and human freedom, to name but a few items where evangelicals, who all hold the same view of Scripture, are deeply divided as to how it impacts our lives at specific points?

     The longing for absoluteness on all matters, which compels the fundamentalist mindset, is ever with the evangelical as well—precisely because of the conviction that Scripture is God’s word above all. Since God himself is unseen and known only by revelation and faith, and must finally be trusted, the need for certainty is often vested in the penultimate that leads us to God. Such a need drove the Pharisee to put a hedge around the law and the legalist to put a hedge around certain behavior. It is too much to trust in God without absolute certainty, which of course, as Bultmann rightly criticized us, is its own form of idolatry.

     Hence there is always pressure from this side of our fallenness to eliminate ambiguity. If God himself is infallible, then the text of his word must be infallible. If the text is infallible, then there must be an infallible understanding of it. But that is not an evangelical syllogism. The text itself in its intent is infallible, we would argue, because of its character as God’s word. And we insist on this, because even if we disagree on the meaning of the text, our hope lies in the text itself to have its inherent power as God’s word to correct us.

     But the buck stops there, at the text and its intent, as to what is infallible. God did not choose to give us a series of timeless, non-culture-bound theological propositions to be believed and imperatives to be obeyed. Rather he chose to speak his eternal word this way, in historically particular circumstances, and in every kind of literary genre. God himself, by the very way he gave us this word, locked in the ambiguity. So let us not fight God and insist that he give us his word another way, Or as we are more apt to do, rework his word along theological or cultural prejudgments that turn it into a minefield of principles, propositions, or imperatives, but denude it of its ad hoc character as truly human. The ambiguity is a part of what God did in giving us his word this way. Our task is to recognize and capitalize on what God has done.

(Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics, [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000], pp. 32-33.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     But those who read them in a light-minded spirit are liable to be misled by innumerable obscurities and ambiguities, and to mistake the meaning entirely, while in some places they cannot even guess at a wrong meaning, so dense and dark is the fog that some passages are wrapped in. This is all due, I have no doubt at all, to divine providence, in order to break in pride with hard labor, and to save the intelligence from boredom, since it readily forms a low opinion of things that are too easy to work out.

(Augustine of Hippo, Teaching Christianity (De Doctrina Christiana), 2.6.7; trans. WSA, I/11:131.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     Where, however, an ambiguity can be resolved neither by the standard of faith nor by the actual context of the passage, there is no objection to your phrasing it in any of the ways that are open to you.

(Augustine of Hippo, Teaching Christianity (De Doctrina Christiana), 3.2.5; trans. WSA, I/11:170.)

John H. Walton:

“FAITHFUL” RATHER THAN “RIGHT”

Note that I frame this quest by the word faithful—not by the word right. People who take the Bible seriously have perhaps spent too much time and energy trying to insist that their interpretation is right and the interpretations of others are wrong. This is not to say that interpretations cannot be right or wrong. Nevertheless, in the cases of the most controversial issues, “right” is precisely what is under discussion. Everyone cannot be right, but we should recognize what commends one interpretation over another. That is why I have framed this as “faithful” interpretation. Our methodology should be faithful even though sometimes we might arrive at different answers.

     Simply put, an interpretation is the result of identifying evidence (for example, linguistic, literary, historical, theological, cultural) and assessing that evidence, then applying it to a base of presuppositions one holds. Such presuppositions may pertain to what readers believe about the Bible or to the theology they deduce from the Bible. They may be presuppositions held consciously, by choice, or subconsciously, adopted through long years of passive reception and tradition. In the process, interpreters prioritize and shape the various pieces of evidence to accord with their presuppositions and cultural locations to arrive at an interpretation. That interpretation, then, reflects what the interpreters consider having the strongest evidence in light of their governing presuppositions.

     Unfortunately, it is common for all of us to consider the interpretation that we prefer, given our perspectives and presuppositions, as simply “right.” It is logical to conclude that the interpretation with the strongest evidence carries the highest probability. But for another reader who has different presuppositions, or who prioritizes the evidence differently, or who is not persuaded that one piece of evidence is legitimate, a different interpretation will take pride of place and be considered as having the strongest evidence.

     Using the adjective “faithful” instead of “right” humbly recognizes that we all fall into the pitfalls of blind presuppositions and overlooked evidence. We can only seek to be as faithful as possible. No interpreter is infallible. Maybe sometimes we will even be right, but that is not our claim to make. Certain interpretations may be disproved by evidence, but interpretations cannot be proved true. Evidence supports an interpretation and therefore lends it a higher degree of probability. The greater the evidence that supports a particular interpretation, the higher the probability we are understanding God’s message, and the higher our confidence in our conclusions can be.

(John H. Walton, Wisdom for Faithful Reading: Principles and Practices for Old Testament Interpretation, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2023], pp. 4-5.) Preview.

Ronald E. Osborn:

What all this means is that we must abandon any pretensions to absolute certainty about our interpretations and confess that we always see “through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13:12).

(Ronald E. Osborn, Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014], p. 119.)

Note: See further: “Dialogue and the Necessity of Humility.”

6. Unity. Return to Outline.

G. W. Bromiley:

…it cannot be denied that real disunity, even for what seems to be the best of reasons, is a definite evil in the church. The movement for unity is thus to be applauded in principle. And while it is right that there should be firm but good-tempered criticism of wrong ideas and courses, the supreme task is the positive one of guiding it, if possible, to a right understanding and therefore to correct and fruitful action.

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], p. 5.)

G. W. Bromiley:

     Yet against the realization of unity we have to set the stark and discouraging fact of historical disunity. Except perhaps in the very first days of the infant church in Jerusalem, there never has been a time when those who profess and call themselves Christians have in fact lived together in unruffled concord. Even in Jerusalem disputes arose between the Jews and Hellenists (Acts 6:1ff.), and widespread disagreement entered into the primitive churches with the bitter Judaistic controversy (cf. Gal. 1:7ff., 2:1ff.), quite apart from the disruptive influences of incipient Gnosticism.

     When we continue the story, we do not find that either the patristic or the medieval period gives us the historical unity that some historians or controversialists would like to imagine. Much of the history of the early church is that of heresies, schisms, and excommunications, with quarrels between the leading churches or bishops to add to the sorry confusion. The Middle Ages give us a more unified picture in the West, but it is overarched by the schism with the Eastern church, not to speak of the Coptic and Syrian. Indeed, even in Europe itself there is the constant discord of warring factions, and doctrinal and religious resistance has often to be suppressed by force to maintain the external facade of unity.

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], pp. 16-17.)

G. W. Bromiley:

     A preliminary answer which needs to be emphasized is that historical life carries with it a plenitude of legitimate as well as illegitimate diversity. Individuals and races have been richly endowed with a wide range of gifts and tastes and aptitudes. Different men and communities cannot be expected to do everything according to the one strict pattern. It belongs to the very essence of earthly life, and probably of heavenly as well, that there should be many different forms and expressions of the one life. As the Bible itself tells us, there is the one Spirit, but there are diversities of gifts, differences of administrations and diversities of operations (I Cor. 10:4ff.). The only body of Christ has many members with very different tasks and functions (I Cor. 12:12ff.). Hence it is only to be expected that in the historical circumstances of earthly life and according to the good creation of God there should be varied manifestations of the church and its life.

     Diversity, however, is not disunity, and therefore the mere fact of multiplicity is no real answer to the question. But it needs to be emphasized because indirectly it may be a very significant answer. For diversity easily gives rise to disunity, especially when unity itself is confused with uniformity. That is why it is important that this preliminary consideration should be taken into account in tackling the question. Far too often the church has imagined that because it is one it must enforce in the sphere of belief, order, and practice a rigid conformity. But this is neither attainable in practice nor right in principle, and therefore can only lead to revolt and separation in the name of the one Spirit exercising His multiple administration. Disunity itself is not to be easily passed off and excused as legitimate diversity. But the fact that historical life involves multiplicity has been and is a fruitful source of actual disunity when it is not taken into account and there is the impulse to force all individuals, communities, and actions into a narrow and permanent mold. Already in the right and necessary multiplicity of human life we have that which may easily give rise to disunity and even strife in all historical fellowships and institutions and therefore in the church no less than in others.

     But the fact that this is so, and that disunity does really arise out of diversity, is due to the third factor which has to be taken into account in this whole question. The life of the church necessarily takes historical form. It is thus involved in multiplicity. But it also falls under the sinfulness which marks all historical life apart from that of the incarnate Christ, and thus involves the constant perversion of unity into uniformity and diversity into disunity. It is because there is no sinless perfection of the church that disunity arises in the community of Jesus Christ for all its awareness and confession of unity.

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], pp. 19-20.)

G. W. Bromiley:

…unity must be given practical shape. True Christianity knows nothing of a divorce between the spiritual and the historical. The mystical unity is unreal if it does not find expression in at least an attempt at historical unity. The church cannot be content to be one in faith and spirit and possibly charity if it is hopelessly divided in organization and practical endeavor. It is committed by its very being in history to give a concrete, historical representation of what it is in terms of the historical life which the world can see and understand. This is plainly grasped in the various efforts to achieve and maintain unity as a demonstrable historical entity.

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], p. 28.)

G. W. Bromiley:

…if the way of organizational unity is one of attempted self-righteousness this is far too easily one of culpable antinomianism. It rejoices in the assured fact of invisible unity. But its faith does not lead, as faith should, to vigorous and obedient action. It is a resigned and passive faith. To be sure, faith is primarily receptive. It is not itself a work of justifying righteousness. But on a genuine biblical and Reformation view faith is also active. It is a busy, vital, inspiring, and impelling force. It must express that which it believes in terms of human life and activity. It must engage the forces of evil which it knows to be defeated. It cannot acquiesce in the disunity which it knows not to be the real truth about the church. It may fail in its attempted expression of unity. It knows that the full reality of unity is to be found in that which God has done. But just because this is known in faith to be the real truth, faith is impelled to give it preliminary and fragmentary expression. Otherwise it is surely not a true faith.

     The question thus poses itself whether we really do believe in the invisible unity of the church if we are not prepared, as Calvin and Cranmer were, to seek its visible concretion in every area of church life and to the very utmost of our power. After all, the justified sinner may be still a sinner. But he cannot be an acquiescent sinner, abandoning this life to the triumphant fact of sin, because he can appeal in another and higher sphere to the even more triumphant fact of righteousness. And by the same token, the united church may be still disunited, but it cannot be acquiescently disunited, abandoning this life to triumphant disunity because it can appeal in a different sphere to a higher and ultimate unity.

     …The fact is that Christ Himself in His person and work is already the accomplished unity of the church. It is because of this that the church knows that it is already one, and can work and pray for the visible manifestation of its unity.

     … It is when unity in Christ is seen and accepted as a real fact that we can have the quiet assurance in face of disunity that no attempt at purely human unification can ever give. In Christ the will of God is already done; His kingdom has come; the prayer for unity is heard and answered. All further action can proceed upon this given fact, not in an evasion of reality, but in a recognition of the true reality. Not to believe this, and therefore to think that some other unity must be found or created, is to live as though the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ had not taken place or had not taken place for us, and can therefore only lead to the greater disunity. To believe it, and therefore to be content to find our unity achieved and given as a real fact in Christ, is to find the solid and enduring answer to the challenge of disunity, and therefore to set ourselves on the way to the defeat of its damaging and despairing if impotent counter-thrusts.

     For when unity in Christ is seen and accepted as a real fact, our quiet assurance is also an impulsion to action. Unity no less than wisdom and sanctification is our true being. It cannot remain an unexpressed reality. It demands outworking in the complementary action of those who are willing to see their independent reality judged and set aside, and to find their new and true reality in the One who took their place.

(G. W. Bromiley, The Unity and Disunity of the Church, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958], pp. 35-36, 41, 44-45.)

7. The Relation Between Christ and the Scriptures. Return to Outline.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. ?-108/40 A.D.):

     Moreover, I urge you to do nothing in a spirit of contentiousness, but in accordance with the teaching of Christ. For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archives,[fn. 8.2: archives I.e., the (now called Old Testament) scriptures.] I do not believe it in the gospel.” And when I said to them, “It is written,” they answered me, “That is precisely the question.” But for me, the “archives” are Jesus Christ, the unalterable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection and the faith that comes through him; by these things I want, through your prayers, to be justified.

(Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 8.2; trans. Michael W. Holmes,The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], p. 243.) Preview.

C. S. Lewis:

     It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers will bring us to Him. …But we must not use the Bible (our fathers too often did) as a sort of Encyclopedia out of which texts (isolated from their context and not read without attention to the whole nature & purport of the books in which they occur) can be taken for use as weapons.

(C. S. Lewis, Letter, “To Mrs Johnson (W),” Magdalen etc, Oxford, Nov. 8 1952; In: The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis: Volume III, ed. Walter Hooper, [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007], p. 246.) Preview.

Fisher Humphreys:

     We should not treat the Bible as an idol. We do this when we care more about it than we do about God who wrote it. Sometimes people ask what we believe in and we respond “the Bible.” But that is not exactly true; we believe in God, the God who was in Christ, as we have read about him in the Bible. The Bible is a means to the end that we have faith in God; if we make an end in itself, then we make it an idol. God is the end; the Bible is a means through which God speaks to us.

(Fisher Humphreys, Thinking about God: An Introduction to Christian Theology, [New Orleans: Insight Press, 1974], p. 50.)

T. F. Torrance:

     The practical and the epistemological effect of a fundamentalism of this kind is to give an infallible Bible and a set of rigid evangelical beliefs primacy over God’s self-revelation which is mediated to us through the Bible. This effect is only reinforced by the regular fundamentalist identification of biblical statements about the truth with the truth itself to which they refer. Here undoubtedly we find a marked failure to acknowledge the unique Reality of God in its transcendent authority and majesty over all the contingent media employed by God in his self-revelation to mankind. But what must be particularly distressing for a genuinely evangelical approach is that the living reality of God’s self-revelation through Jesus Christ and in the Spirit is in point of fact made secondary to the Scriptures. 

(T. F. Torrance, Reality and Evangelical Theology, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982], pp. 17-18.)

N. T. Wright:

There is nothing to be gained from an attempt to make the truth of Christianity depend on the literal truth of every word of the Bible. Such a view shifts the balance in Christianity decisively in the wrong direction. For Christians, Jesus, not the New Testament, is the central truth. But one should not, for that reason, imagine that historical issues can simply go by the board.

(N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993], p. 88.)

Cf. B. B. Warfield:

Inspiration is not the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, nor even the first thing we prove about the Scriptures. It is the last and crowning fact as to the Scriptures. These we first prove authentic, historically credible, generally trustworthy, before we prove them inspired. And the proof of their authenticity, credibility, general trustworthiness would give us a firm basis for Christianity prior to any knowledge on our part of their inspiration, and apart indeed from the existence of inspiration. The present writer, in order to prevent all misunderstanding, desires to repeat here what he has said on every proper occasion—that he is far from contending that without inspiration there could be no Christianity. “Without any inspiration,” he added, when making this affirmation on his induction into the work of teaching the Bible[fn. *. Discourses Occasioned by the Inauguration of Benj. B. Warfield, D.D., to the Chair of New Testament Exegesis and Literature in the Western Theological Seminary, April 25, 1880. Pittsburgh, 1880. P. 46. Cf. Inspiration. By Prof. A. A. Hodge and Prof. B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1881. Pp. 7, 8 (also in The Presbyterian Review for April, 1891). Also, The Inspiration of the Scriptures. By Francis L. Patton, D.D. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869. Pp. 22, 23, 54.]—“without any inspiration we could have had Christianity; yea, and men could still have heard the truth and through it been awakened, and justified, and sanctified, and glorified. The verities of our faith would remain historically proven to us so bountiful has God been in His fostering care—even had we no Bible; and through those verities, salvation.”

(Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Real Problem of Inspiration;” In: The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Volume IV: 1893, [Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Review Association, 1893], p. 209.)

Christian Smith:

Jesus Christ is the true and final Word of God, in relation to whom scripture is God’s secondary, written word of witness and testimony. …Biblicists are often so insistent that the Bible is God’s only complete, sufficient, and final word that they can easily forget in practice that before and above the Bible as God’s written word stands Jesus Christ, who is God’s living Word and ultimate and final self-revelation. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:1, 14).

     American evangelical biblicists often fall into the trap of talking and acting as if the Bible is God’s highest self-revelation. They have done this for various understandable reasons.

     …But talking and acting as if the Bible is God’s only and highest self-revelation is completely “unbiblical,” even when considered in biblicist terms. God’s truest, highest, most important, most authoritative, and most compelling self-revelation is the God/Man Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ—and not the Bible—who is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). It was in Jesus Christ that “God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell” (Col. 1:19).

…The evangelion, the gospel, is not simply some cognitive information gleaned from the Bible to which we have to give intellectual assent. Jesus Christ himself is the gospel. And Christ is not simply a figure who once lived in Palestine and has left us alone on earth with nothing but a written historical record of the past, which we are to believe. Jesus Christ is the living Lord who is present in and to his church through his Spirit, the sacraments, right preaching, and the written word of scripture.

     The Bible is of course crucial for the Christian church and life. But it does not trump Jesus Christ as the true and final Word of God. The Bible is a secondary, subsidiary, functional, written word of God, the primary purpose of which is to mediate, to point us to, to give true testimony about the living Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ did, could, and will live and reign and make his home with us without the Bible as we know it. The Bible did not and could not exist or have any meaning without the higher, truer, more final Word of God, Jesus Christ. The Bible points. Jesus Christ is the amazing person to whom the Bible points. Scripture mediates God’s revelation. Jesus Christ is the fullness of revelation, which scripture helps mediate. The Bible is passing. Jesus Christ is eternal. The Bible points us to the truth, proclaims God’s truth; Jesus Christ himself is that Truth.

     Biblicism borders on idolatry when it fails to maintain this perspective. The living reality of the resurrected, victorious Jesus Christ at the Father’s right hand and throughout the world in the Holy Spirit is God’s ultimate Word to and for us. Scripture too is God’s word, but a secondary, subsidiary, penultimate, written, pointing, mediating, testifying word. The same is true of biblical preaching, except that preaching is a tertiary form of God’s word—subsidiary and accountable to scripture, though, like scripture, always and entirely oriented toward pointing to the living reality of Jesus Christ. Therefore, “Faith does not rest simply on texts, but—also and more—on persons and events. Faith stands or falls not with the status of a holy text . . . but with the knowledge and meaning of these persons and events, which can be mediated by the text.” The important person and event here, of course, is Jesus Christ.

     …Biblicists may reply that Christ is, of course, the ultimate Word of God, but nevertheless object that the only way anybody actually knows about him is the Bible—and so all anyone is left with today for knowledge of God and Christ is scripture. This claim has a grain of truth in it, but it is overstated when put that way.

     Of course the Bible as described above is the primary testifying, mediating witness to Jesus Christ. Of course the Bible comes to the church in writing and therefore enjoys a durability and some level of material objectivity over time (leaving aside the problems of copying and translating). But something is nevertheless wrong with the idea that all presence, communication, fellowship, exchange, and commerce between God and humans always and only transpire somehow through the paper and ink of the Bible. That is an overly rationalistic, modern approach to faith and life. John Webster rightly notes, “Accounts of scriptural inspiration are not infrequently curiously deistic, in so far as the biblical text can itself become a revelatory agent by virtue of an act of divine inspiration in the past.”

     But what does the Bible itself say? Jesus Christ is present to his people in the church in the bread and the wine. Jesus Christ is personally present with the believer, who in baptism dies with Christ and is raised in Christ to new life—and so to those already baptized who baptize others as well. Jesus Christ is made present through the Holy Spirit to all people who hear him in the faithful preaching of the gospel. Jesus Christ is the mystical head of the church body in which all his people are united to him. Jesus Christ is present, as promised, with any two or three of his own who gather in his name. Jesus Christ is present to the church generally in the Holy Spirit, who is sent to call, teach, lead, enlighten, comfort, and heal. Jesus Christ is present to the believer in prayer. Jesus Christ is present to the believer in the form of his or her needy neighbor. So the Bible is a crucial but not an isolated nor a sufficient mediating means of knowing, living with, and sharing in the life of Jesus Christ.

     …Again, what does this recognition—that Jesus Christ is the primary, true, and final Word of God to whom scripture as written word only secondarily testifies—do to address the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism? For starters, it prevents us from turning the Bible into an idol. It removes from us the temptation to turn the printed book into the way, the truth, and the life. It reminds us that the Bible is only a means, a testimony, a pointer. What really matters is Jesus Christ as the end, the object of the testimony, the one to whom we are urgently pointed. That helps to keep the Bible in its proper place in the economy of salvation.

(Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture, [Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2011], pp. 116, 116-117, 117, 117-118, 119-120, 120.)

John Barton:

As James Barr puts it, ‘it does not rest simply on texts, but also – and more – on persons and events. Faith stands or falls not with the status of a holy text . . . but with the knowledge and meaning of these persons and events, which can be mediated by the text.’ …Christianity is not in the last resort about relations between texts, but about events in the real world: the Word of God did not for us become incarnate in a book, but in a life. The gospel is not about a new classification scheme for the religious library, but about new life in Christ.

(John Barton, People of the Book? The Authority of the Bible in Christianity: New Edition, [London: SPCK, 1995], pp. 33-34, 34.)

I. Howard Marshall:

It is certainly right to affirm that revelation took place supremely in the person and life of Jesus Christ and also in the historical experience of the people of Israel and of the early Church, and the Scriptures do function as a record of these historical acts of revelation. But it is wrong to deny that the Bible itself can be a form of revelation…

(I. Howard Marshall, Biblical Inspiration, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1983], p. 13.)

Cf. I. Howard Marshall:

…God’s revelation of himself came in historical events and persons as well as in the words of Scripture, and . . . what saves us is not the book which tells us about what God has done but rather the historical bearing of our sins by our Saviour and his historical resurrection from the dead.

(I. Howard Marshall, Biblical Inspiration, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1983], p. 92.)

N. T. Wright:

…the phrase “authority of scripture” can make Christian sense only if it is a shorthand for “the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through scripture.” Once we think this through, several other things become clear.

     All authority is from God, declares Paul in relation to governments (Romans 13:1); Jesus says something very similar in John 19:11. In Matthew 28:18, the risen Jesus makes the still more striking claim that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him, a statement echoed elsewhere—for instance, in Philippians 2:9-11. A quick glance through many other texts in both the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 40—55) and the New (e.g., Revelation 4 and 5) would confirm this kind of picture. When John declares that “in the beginning was the word,” he does not reach a climax with “and the word was written down” but “and the word became flesh.” The letter to the Hebrews speaks glowingly of God speaking through scripture in time past, but insists that now, at last, God has spoken through his own son (1:1-2). Since these are themselves “scriptural” statements, that means that scripture itself points . . . away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself, now delegated to Jesus Christ. It is Jesus, according to John 8:39-40, who speaks the truth which he has heard from God.

(N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, [New York: HarperOne, 2011], pp. 21-22.)

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria