We looked at what different Christians believe about the Bible. We started with the Chicago Statement - which sets out a common evangelical standpoint. I did my best to try and point out some inconsistencies and areas where nobody takes the Bible literally anymore with regard to what the Earth is like. After much discussion we thought about this quote from Karl Barth:
'The Bible is only God's Word to the extent that he causes it to be his Word; to the extent that he speaks through it.'
It will probably never be an area where we all agree, but it was good to have a frank discussion.
2 comments:
Have been thinking on this a lot; if the Bible is fallible in places, and becomes the Word of God when He speaks through it, how do we know what is and what isn't useful? What makes it all the more relevant than say reading Tolkien or Agatha Christie or some other sacred text, if all we end up with is essentially the Gospels?
While I subscribe to some errancy in the Bible, I am still not sure how I would articulate a counter balance statement affirming it as a source for doctrine and history of God's interaction with the world.
Tim
I find John Bell's approach helpful. He says that the stories in the Bible fall into two (not mutually exclusive) categories.
Some stories are true stories - they are historical records of people, events and times. Some of these are more edifying than others for us - we can take more from the story of David and Goliath (about responding to military might) that we can from the story of David and Bathsheba.
The other kind of story are truth stories - they may or may not be based on real events, but that doesn't matter because their real purpose is to reveal something about God's character. Jesus' parables are truth stories - it doesn't matter if the Prodigal Son was a real person or not. The creation story falls into this category, I think.
So, it is all useful, but you need to work out which sort of truth it contains first.
Post a Comment