J+

Jesse said it very well. “the utilization of my intellect with respect to the Bible is to seek to understand it proceeding on the assumption that what it says is true, rather than using my intellect to judge whether its truth claims are true.” Scripture was written for the seeker minded. Someone who is hungry for truth and needing God.

Given the substantial agreements we seem to have, the sticking point would seem to be this. I think the author’s of a given work could be passing on faith and values to times and places that they cannot have imagined. To times and places that you and I cannot imagine, and it may be a great risk to insist that the literal and the moral skeleton of the story are one and the same. This can act as a signifigant barrier to getting someone to open up the book and make the time and effort to hear it out.

In fact, one of the “progresssive, reality based” bloggers has linked this post to make the point that the very fact we’re talking about the Bible is de facto proof that we are the punchline in his little stand up routine. This knee jerk prejudice is disappointing because the point of the post was saying that it’s OK to read the book without a whole hearted initial commitment. The very act of wrestling with the questions raised is a worthwhile task, in both a scholarly and - if and when that commitment comes - also in a salvic sense.

Your point about Elijah as a precursor to Christ (and Mary in my faith tradition) being lifted up is noted and is a point in your favor, I think. Finally, when I wrote that the councils that canonized the Bible had to judge the merits of the books I do mean that they were Spirit guided. I tend to take it for granted that faith and reason are interwined and this does confuse people at times.

Cheers.

I focused on Elijah’s ascension and more broadly the issue of miracles since I believed that one’s view of these things necessarily assumes one’s position with respect to the authority, infallibility, inerrancy, etc. of the Bible. I’m sure
you’ve read or heard someone say before that they don’t believe the miracles of the Bible took place because the Bible is [insert negative criticism of the Bible].

As for God using men to write the Bible, I’m well aware. My own understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is referred to in my circles as “organic” inspiration, and has been articulated by such theologians as John Calvin, Francis Turretin, Herman Bavinck and many more (and is consistent with the Biblical writers themselves, I would argue). I take it that the Church’s recognition of the canonical books was, if you will, a Spirit-inspired, reflexive response to the authentic Biblical books. I utterly reject the notion that the Church fathers were required to stand as judge over Scripture to determine which books were inspired and which ones weren’t. For in so doing, among a whole host of other problems, Christianity becomes nothing but another man-made religion. I take it that the Biblical books which the early Church canonized were those which the Church collectively already knew to be the word of God, as handed down to them from the Apostles, and that they did so in part to protect the Church from pseudonymous and other false writings. In the final analysis, we can truly say with certainty that what the Bibles says is the word of the Lord (as Jesus did, for example, when tempted by the Devil in the wilderness). To have that kind of a child-like trust in the Bible is by no means to have a child-like intellect.

You wrote: “Its origins assure this book begs for interpretation, and sifting - and that is no accident. In this context, wrestling with the text isn’t placing my mind over God’s. The question, ‘What does it mean that God chose to use that person, at that time, to write this text, which I am reading right now?’ isn’t disrespectful. I think that degree of scrutiny is an act of honesty and love.”

I couldn’t agree more. In fact, as a Calvinist, I could also utter these words. But I suppose the difference between you and me is that I believe reason to be a ministerial rather than a magisterial tool. In other words, the utilization of my intellect with respect to the Bible is to seek to understand it proceeding on the assumption that what it says is true, rather than using my intellect to judge whether its truth claims are true. Atheists do the latter.

The Bible confronts us with this claim: “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11). If you want to reject that this happened, you’d need to make the Bible out to be something other than what it claims to be. If you want to say that this is “metaphorical” or whatever then you’d need some way of knowing that, otherwise you’re being arbitrary. No
other passage in the Bible treats this as something other than an actual historical event. (In fact, you may want to consider the similarities between Jesus’ and Elijah’s ascensions, and how these two events provide meaning for one another,
which, when you understand, makes the historicity of Elijah’s ascension no mere trivial dispute).

Ah. I have to run.

Regards.
- Jesse

I think we are in danger of being sidetracked by the issue of miracles however. The question of Elijah being raised up is not meant to scourn all of the miracles in the Bible, but rather to illustrate that Bible’s worth does not stand or fall on the issue of the various writers’ understanding of physical nature of the world. You’re debating a Catholic, after all, and that means I think a miracle takes place at every Mass (transubstantiaion of the host). Nor does questioning the literal sense of one such story mean that I question it in all of them. Paul himself wrote the the Christian faith hinged on one miracle and that was Christ himself rising from the dead.

I read the link that you provided and don’t have any issues with it. This question is revealing, though, illustrating different ideas of what the Bible is: “Epistemologically (and ethically and ontologically for that matter) wouldn’t you take God to be a higher authority than your own mind?”

God did not write the Bible directly, however - he used men to achieve his ends. If we were to treat the Bible as if it were written directly by God’s hand we would be on a path to treat it more like the Muslims treat the Koran, ie. one author, text dropped from space, etc. Then it might make sense for it to be be only available in the original languages, and for the issue of context to drop away.

But the Bible is not like that. It has many authors, was written in many langauges over thousands of years. Then it was collected by other men. Its’ origins assure this book begs for interpretation, and sifting - and that is no accident. In this context, wrestling with the text isn’t placing my mind over God’s. The question, ‘What does it mean that God chose to use that person, at that time, to write this text, which I am reading right now?” isn’t disrespectful. I think that degree of scrutiny is an act of honesty and love.

That act of collecting the Bible stories is too easily overlooked. The stories in the collection had to be read and interpreted before the book could be assembled, and that means that in that act canonization, scripture could not have be used to interpret scripture. If the councils that gave us the book could use their God guided and created minds to do so, then we can hope and trust that we can also be so guided, using all the tools at our disposal.

I personally don’t see any grounds upon which to proceed with a modicum of suspicion concerning to the Bible. I’ll not hide what I assume when I say that: I take the Bible to be God’s word (I think you know what I mean when I say that). That means that the function of my reasoning abilities is not to judge the Bible as to its veracity, but to seek to understand it in its linguistic, grammatical and historical context — Scripture interpreting Scripture, if you will.

You write: “It just means we have to dig a bit and see if we can understand what they are saying in a way that does not contradict another one of God’s gifts, that being the rational mind and many years of discoveries that it has turned up.”

Question: what if your mind disagrees with something God has revealed in the Bible? — for example, the taking up of Elijah into heaven? Epistemologically (and ethically and ontologically for that matter) wouldn’t you take God to be a higher authority than your own mind?

You write: “Primitive people describing things in fantastic ways, on the other hand, is quite common.”

But this comment avoids at least two facts: Skepticism about the miraculous is no new invention, and existed long before the enlightenment. Also, “primitve” thinking is also common today in this world in this age. Just consider all the crazy things people believe — even today in this post-enlightenment world.

May I recommend an article? Read it only when you have time. See here.

(Willing to continue interacting with you on this if you so desire).

Cheers.
- Jesse

Based on my experience the probability of Elijah’s being taken up is very low but still higher than zero. Primitive people describing things in fantastic ways, on the other hand, is quite common. It does not mean that they are lying or wrong. It just means we have to dig a bit and see if we can understand what they are saying in a way that does not contradict another one of God’s gifts, that being the rational mind and many years of discoveries that it has turned up.