From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Limits to Criticism/5
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:59:21 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab


 LIMITS OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM AND OPPOSITION TO 
                   PLENARY INSPIRATION

A.  LIMITS OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM AND OPPOSITION TO 
     PLENARY INSPIRATION
B.  THE IMPOSSIBILITY THAT A FALLIBLE MESSAGE COULD
     BECOME THE WORD OF GOD
C.  EVANGELICALS SUPPOSEDLY NONSCIENTIFIC IN REGARD TO
     THE BIBLE
*   1)  THE BASIS OF PREACHING
*   2)  EXPLAINING SUCCESSIVE THEOLOGICAL FASHIONS
    3)  THE MORAL AND SPIRITUAL POINTS OF VIEW

Excerpts from "The Inspiration & Authority of Scripture"  by Rene Pache,
copyright 1969, Moody Press.  Used by permission.

EVANGELICALS SUPPOSEDLY NONSCIENTIFIC IN REGARD TO
THE BIBLE

     The accusation that Evangelicals set out from a nonscientific a priori in
regard to the Bible is another ground for complaint made by modern theologians
against us. They say to us: "You go around in a vicious circle.  First you put
up your dogma of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures; then you
pull out of that inspired Bible texts to prove inspiration.  A scientist first
examines the facts without preconceived ideas; then from these he deduces a law
if he can.  Likewise, we must submit the Bible to scientific examination and
then honestly admit the results of the experiment."
     Once more, it is easy to return the compliment.  We think that S. Van
Mierlo does this very well in "La Revelation Divine."  This is substantially
what he has to say:  It is true that the scientist takes a critical attitude
when he seeks for truth by the examination of natural phenomena. But he does
not apply this method to nature in its ensemble. For him *nature, which is a
priori true, forms an intelligible unity.*  One can even speak of the profound
faith of scholars in the unity of the creation.  The physicist does not
criticize nature when he runs up against an apparent error or a contradiction. 
He examines, compares, tries to understand and forces himself to find the truth
which he assumes exists.  Faced with phenomena which he finds incredible or in
conflict with others, he concludes that it is he who is wrong.  He corrects his
initial appraisal, revises his theory and, if necessary, sacrifices his own
thinking.  He takes a humble attitude toward truth. He does not subject to
question either the veracity or the unity of nature; what he criticises is
human opinion relative to nature.
     Even so, the believer bows before the authority, unity and trustworthiness
of Scripture.  It is not that he imposes these on Scripture in any
authoritative way.  If he approaches it with an open and a humble heart, he
gets the greatest shock of his life: he finds God in it; his eyes are opened;
he receives new life from it.  From there on, convinced that he has before him
God's Book, he will respect its contents and will apply his critical mind to
evaluating the interpretations which men, including himself, have put on it.
     As for science, let us note that it is risky for theologians to be pulled
along by it, as, for example, Brunner and Bultmann have been.  The first
declares that science has rendered faith in the Genesis account impossible; for
the second, the technological discoveries of the twentieth century have once
and for all demolished and put an end to belief in the supernatural.  But,
strangely, "modern science" does not utter a consistent voice.  The scientific
treatises of one generation are very quickly discarded by the next.  A short
time ago liberal theologians solemnly assured us that modern science made
"impossible" acceptance of a catastrophic end of the world as announced by the
Bible.  Now they naively declare that atomic science permits us to come back to
the belief condemned yesterday as absurdly antiscientific.  Consequently
theologians slavishly devoted to the science of the day have had to make a
complete about-face.  Brunner puts it like this: "What until recently seemed to
be only the apocalyptic fantasies of the Christian faith has today entered the
sphere of the soberest scientific calculations: the sudden end of human
history....  This thought has ceased to be absurd, i.e. to be such that a man
educated in modern scientific knowledge would have to give it up"
     Search for a "scientific respectability." Theological liberalism has been
greatly influenced-if not created-by the wave of scientific rationalism that
swept over the whole nineteenth century.  The most recent theologians,
formulating a new theory of revelation, have thought they could not abandon
"the results of criticism."  They have wanted in this way to stay "a la page,"
so as to maintain a scientific respectability, assuring them contact with the
world of intellectuals.  But they have shown themselves very little aware of
the progress of positive biblical research.  Moreover, they have been led to
stand aloof from the biblical text and to take refuge in an illuminism and a
mysticism that are situated entirely outside the reach and the interest of
modern science.
 This, among others, is one reason why we cannot but consider illusory the
snobbishness which impels some Evangelicals to seek that same "scientific
respectability."  Since criticism is in vogue, since one practically has to
adopt it to obtain certain diplomas, they sometimes do not hesitate to put in
jeopardy their biblical faith and their spiritual power, exposing these to the
corrosive effects of negative theories.  Fortunately there is, we believe,
another way to keep one's faith in the whole of Scripture and to acquire at the
same time all the useful information obtainable through modern scholarship. 
This is through Bible schools and evangelical faculties of theology and truly
up-to-date positive literature, of which there is much more in English than in
either French or German.

1)  THE BASIS OF PREACHING

     If the Bible is not the Word of God, it is hard to imagine what can be
preached about with any assurance.  We have seen that the apostles, everywhere
preaching "the Word of God," did not hesitate to fill their messages with
quotations from the Bible (e.g., Acts 13:16-41, 44, 46, 48-49).  But the man to
whom whole books of Scripture are "pious frauds" and who considers the most
essential historical facts legends or "embellishments"-what is he going to say?
 As for myths, he may be hard put to it to give the flock a simple explanation
of their meaning.
     We mentioned (p. 65) sermons that called the Christmas scriptures
"legendary" and labeled "unimportant" the affirmation or negation of the bodily
resurrection of Christ.  Without mentioning the absence of faith on the part of
such orators as these, what are we to make of the confusion into which they
plunge their hearers?  And what can a pastor say when the Christian public
expects a sermon from him on something he no longer believes?  *Either* he will
resort to an "as if . . ." so as not to shock simple souls, and will use
traditional evangelical language, only with a double meaning, or, with
complicated expressions, he will develop the religious philosophy which in his
mind has taken the place of pure and simple biblical theology.  The reason why
this philosophy ceases to be the gospel is that the gospel, hidden from the
wise and the understanding, is revealed unto babes (Luke 10:21).  This is why
so many modern preachers are tiresome and talk over the heads of their hearers.
 Still, as Spurgeon paraphrased it, what Jesus said to Peter was "Feed My
lambs," not "Feed My giraffes"!  *Or else*, the speaker, in an effort to be
frank, will suppose that the time has come to "free" his audience from old,
outworn beliefs.  The result will probably be that he will scandalize some
devout souls and will destroy the naive faith of many others.  It can well be
also that the latter will thank him for this, if we may judge by the smashing
world-wide success of Bishop Robinson's "Honest to God," summarized above.

2)  EXPLAINING SUCCESSIVE THEOLOGICAL FASHIONS

We have just seen the embarrassing position of the preacher imbued with
critical ideas. If only modern teaching were clear-and, especially, if it were
stable!  But, unfortunately, criticism is constantly changing in its
conclusions, if not in its methods, so that it may well put up on a pedestal
today what it threw into the ash can yesterday.
     We have seen that criticism has fallen into subjectivism: its authority is
no longer that of the Bible, but that of man, who thinks he can discern the
Word of God in his experience and by his own illumination.  Obviously, the
great will be considered particularly illuminated; thus the tendency will
rapidly develop to bow before their experience and doctrine.  All such teaching
will inevitably be fallible and partial, and its influence will generally not
last much longer than its author.  It is, moreover, grievous to us to see the
critics contradict one another and the leaders differ among themselves.  So
each generation will see a new theology come sweeping in and will become
infatuated with some mentor or other. We have seen them, one after the other:
a) Liberalism, which has triumphed during the past century, identified with the
great names of Schleiermacher and Wellhausen (the latter so much "old hat'' by
now that in 1948 one theologian, after alluding to him, added: "Forgive me that
I quote this old condemned dragon" !) .
b) Dialectical theology, represented particularly by Barth, Brunner and
Niebuhr. It seemed that this was going to endure, especially the reaction
introduced by Barth.  But everyone knows now that his influence has sharply
declined in favor of a more negative theology.
c) The theology of Bultmann, E. Kasemann and Paul Tillich in Germany and in
America and of Robinson in England, etc.
 In view of the fact that this last-mentioned tendency is by far the most
negative, one wonders with considerable trepidation what the next wave of
opinion will be like.  The American movement claiming that God is dead shows us
that today we can expect practically anything.  It is really significant here
that Paul Tillich entitled one of his books "The Shaking of the Foundations."
     In the light of all this theological shift and uncertainty, it is
reassuring for evangelical believers and for preachers to rely on the immutable
authority of Scripture, the Word of God. Evangelicals are not disciples of any
popular theologians-not even of Calvin, Luther, Wesley or Darby-but of Jesus
Christ and His apostles.  For them, faith has been "once for all delivered"
(Jude 3).  They are ready to fight and to suffer for such a glorious heritage.

Amen, Preach it brother!
Next:  THE MORAL AND SPIRITUAL POINTS OF VIEW
This next section will conclude this posting.  Hope you have learnt something
new from it, if nothing else, that there are others out there that believe as I
do and can express it so.
(RexLex@fnal.fnal.gov)