Thoughts on "Biblical Epistemology"
Since there are so many bible-believing (or "Evangelical") Christians in North America, and more to the point, so many among my family and closest friends, I feel quite motivated to explain to folks why I believe Christians should be voluntaryists (libertarian anarchists).
But before I fully plunge into that, in order to provide some foundational principles, I wanted to take a few moments to put forward some of my thoughts on "epistemology", which is a fancy word professional philosophers use for the study of "how we know things". I would like to give the disclaimer up front, that I am not a philosopher, have not taken a single college course in philosophy, and have only read a learned (i.e. Bertrand Russell) digest of the main contributors to "western philosophy" throughout history, most of which I remember only foggily. What I am about to talk about is a sort of rough-and-ready, "poor man's" epistemology. It should go without saying that I am not going to quote any philosophical authorities, who have given us their thoughts on epistemology.
I guess I wanted to put something down here that Christians could read, and if they don't like what they're seeing in this post, they will be saved from wasting their time on future posts of mine that discuss biblical passages in depth.
When I use the phrase "biblical epistemology", I am intentionally being ambiguous, because I want to talk about two questions, rather than just the one meaning that I would be intending if this were a serious philosophical essay. The "formal" or "academic" question would be, I think: What does the bible teach about the way human beings can know things? The second follows from the first: How can we know anything, from reading the bible? (And then the first question follows, in turn, from the second, and... so on.)
If you're scratching your head right now, saying, "Well, gee... Does the bible really say much about epistemology?" then I would agree with you that, no, it doesn't say a whole lot, but it does say a few things. First, the two fave passages of Evangelicals from the Greek scriptures, when talking about the bible's own "witness" to its authority (all passages are NRSV, unless otherwise noted):
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
and:
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20-21)
Those are fine passages, of course, and ought to serve as exhortations to us to study the bible a lot and figure out how to apply it and teach it in practical ways, but-- they are really red herrings, when it comes to the question of epistemology (and hermeneutics, for that matter!), for the simple reason that they are circular. They basically say: "This book, that I [the passage] happen to be part of, is God-inspired and authoritative, and should form the basis of teaching about God." Or, they tell us, "The bible is good! Read and study it!"
But the following passage qualifies as a biblical teaching about epistemology:
"For what can be known about God is plain to [people], because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made." (Romans 1:19-20)
WOW! This is a simply staggering pronouncement. Paul is saying here that what can be known about God has been understood, throughout all history, through the "things he has made", aka "nature" or "the creation". Now, I of course am not the first person to stumble upon this verse, over the last 1,900 years or so since Paul wrote it down. People have said a lot about it. I think that it is probably the main source of the "general" side of the doctrine of "general and special revelation".
The established Christian doctrine of God's revelation to humanity, general and special, is relatively straightforward. "General" revelation refers to Paul's statement above, about what all people can know (plainly!) from nature (about God?). "Special" revelation is basically, the contents of the bible.
So this is the moment you've been waiting for-- the main point of this post! "Orthodox" Evangelical Christianity holds that the bible ("special revelation") "teaches itself" and/or "is inerrant and complete". All passages are to be interpreted "through the lens of" all other passages. God's word is true (it's God's word, after all, how could it not be true), so you need to study the bible "as a whole", and the "systematic theology" ("theology" = knowledge about God) that emerges from that effort, will be harmonious, even if individual passages seem to contradict each other.
"General revelation", on the other hand, is... "natural law", I guess, in this doctrine of revelation. Or... You know, it never really made sense to me, this concept! I mean, if everything that can be known about God, can be (plainly!) understood just from observing nature, why do we bother with the bible at all? (Good question! we hear pipe up the modern "secularists/atheists" who are reading this post for some reason.)
I'll tell you what I think:
1) To state the obvious: God is eternal, the bible is not. That is to say, the bible had a beginning, whereas God has always existed, and even creation existed long before the bible did.
2) In light of #1, we can say that Paul's statement about gaining knowledge of God from creation, is true (it's in the bible, after all) but it would still be true, even if Paul hadn't said it, and even if there were no bible at all!
3) In light of #2, we can only conclude that while the verses of the Christian bible should, certainly, be interpreted through the lens of other verses of the Christian bible, more importantly, the whole effort of interpreting the Christian bible, and any other religious text, must be guided based on knowledge about God that is plainly available through the study of nature, i.e., independent of the Christian bible.
I think I'll stop here, and continue in another post, with my thoughts on the subject of what can be known about God from what he has made. But feel free to comment on what I've got so far.
But before I fully plunge into that, in order to provide some foundational principles, I wanted to take a few moments to put forward some of my thoughts on "epistemology", which is a fancy word professional philosophers use for the study of "how we know things". I would like to give the disclaimer up front, that I am not a philosopher, have not taken a single college course in philosophy, and have only read a learned (i.e. Bertrand Russell) digest of the main contributors to "western philosophy" throughout history, most of which I remember only foggily. What I am about to talk about is a sort of rough-and-ready, "poor man's" epistemology. It should go without saying that I am not going to quote any philosophical authorities, who have given us their thoughts on epistemology.
I guess I wanted to put something down here that Christians could read, and if they don't like what they're seeing in this post, they will be saved from wasting their time on future posts of mine that discuss biblical passages in depth.
When I use the phrase "biblical epistemology", I am intentionally being ambiguous, because I want to talk about two questions, rather than just the one meaning that I would be intending if this were a serious philosophical essay. The "formal" or "academic" question would be, I think: What does the bible teach about the way human beings can know things? The second follows from the first: How can we know anything, from reading the bible? (And then the first question follows, in turn, from the second, and... so on.)
If you're scratching your head right now, saying, "Well, gee... Does the bible really say much about epistemology?" then I would agree with you that, no, it doesn't say a whole lot, but it does say a few things. First, the two fave passages of Evangelicals from the Greek scriptures, when talking about the bible's own "witness" to its authority (all passages are NRSV, unless otherwise noted):
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
and:
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20-21)
Those are fine passages, of course, and ought to serve as exhortations to us to study the bible a lot and figure out how to apply it and teach it in practical ways, but-- they are really red herrings, when it comes to the question of epistemology (and hermeneutics, for that matter!), for the simple reason that they are circular. They basically say: "This book, that I [the passage] happen to be part of, is God-inspired and authoritative, and should form the basis of teaching about God." Or, they tell us, "The bible is good! Read and study it!"
But the following passage qualifies as a biblical teaching about epistemology:
"For what can be known about God is plain to [people], because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made." (Romans 1:19-20)
WOW! This is a simply staggering pronouncement. Paul is saying here that what can be known about God has been understood, throughout all history, through the "things he has made", aka "nature" or "the creation". Now, I of course am not the first person to stumble upon this verse, over the last 1,900 years or so since Paul wrote it down. People have said a lot about it. I think that it is probably the main source of the "general" side of the doctrine of "general and special revelation".
The established Christian doctrine of God's revelation to humanity, general and special, is relatively straightforward. "General" revelation refers to Paul's statement above, about what all people can know (plainly!) from nature (about God?). "Special" revelation is basically, the contents of the bible.
So this is the moment you've been waiting for-- the main point of this post! "Orthodox" Evangelical Christianity holds that the bible ("special revelation") "teaches itself" and/or "is inerrant and complete". All passages are to be interpreted "through the lens of" all other passages. God's word is true (it's God's word, after all, how could it not be true), so you need to study the bible "as a whole", and the "systematic theology" ("theology" = knowledge about God) that emerges from that effort, will be harmonious, even if individual passages seem to contradict each other.
"General revelation", on the other hand, is... "natural law", I guess, in this doctrine of revelation. Or... You know, it never really made sense to me, this concept! I mean, if everything that can be known about God, can be (plainly!) understood just from observing nature, why do we bother with the bible at all? (Good question! we hear pipe up the modern "secularists/atheists" who are reading this post for some reason.)
I'll tell you what I think:
1) To state the obvious: God is eternal, the bible is not. That is to say, the bible had a beginning, whereas God has always existed, and even creation existed long before the bible did.
2) In light of #1, we can say that Paul's statement about gaining knowledge of God from creation, is true (it's in the bible, after all) but it would still be true, even if Paul hadn't said it, and even if there were no bible at all!
3) In light of #2, we can only conclude that while the verses of the Christian bible should, certainly, be interpreted through the lens of other verses of the Christian bible, more importantly, the whole effort of interpreting the Christian bible, and any other religious text, must be guided based on knowledge about God that is plainly available through the study of nature, i.e., independent of the Christian bible.
I think I'll stop here, and continue in another post, with my thoughts on the subject of what can be known about God from what he has made. But feel free to comment on what I've got so far.
posted by Joel GL at 4:07 PM
4 Comments:
Interesting. My "off the top of my head" response: The Bible is explicitly denoted at the inerrant, complete Word of God. Creation is not. And while creation occurred before the chiseled and scribble scrolls and manuscripts, the Bible says that the world and all of nature will pass away, but God's Word will endure FOREVER. Also, we must consider the Word (book of John) that was with God and IS GOD from the beginning, that was with God at creation, i.e. Jesus, who embodied the whole of God's gospel message to us. So my point is, let's be careful where we step before we hold creation in too high esteem. Creation is to be viewed in light of scripture, and not the other way around.
I might as well add a comment. There's a concept in law that says "ignorance of the law is not an excuse." I believe that the principle behind this concept, which is a fundamental legal principle, is that we intuitively know right from wrong, even if it takes a legal expert to flesh that out for us. I'm inclined to agree with you that if the Bible didn't exist, we would still sort of know what God's law is. I think, though, that the Bible, like the law, is sort of there as a guidepost. We, being complete sinful dolts, are not trustworthy enough to recognize our own sin, even though we sort of know we're doing it. So God handed us the Bible as an external measuring stick so that when we're blinded, it will unblind us. The value of Bible scholars is that they are better at revealing this measuring stick than the rest of us, at least intellectually.
Now as to your conclusion that our Bible interpretation should be based on what is plainly known about God, I suspect that the opposite is truer: that our knowledge of God apart from the Bible, while it exists, has been clouded, and we need the Bible to uncloud it for us. In other words, I think that what we "plainly" know about God should be subject to the Bible.
That having been said, I probably agree with you that the Bible should not be viewed as a purely closed system. It may be sufficient, and it may be important to interpret scripture with scripture, but I suspect that at times more is made of verses than the verses deserve.
Excellent post. The ability to gain knowledge from Creation is also a reason why we are without excuse....
I would say that because God lives outside of time, and the Bible is his Word, it is possible for it to have always existed... even before we knew it to exist
But like you say, it is not a closed system.
I started to comment on your three comments, but (surprise, surprise!) it got a bit long. So, before I plunge ahead (someday!) on the subject of "what can be known about God" from nature, I will write a follow-up post to respond to the comments.
Thank you for commenting!!
Post a Comment
<< Home