A.D. Hunt: A Theology of the Bible?

Ooh, this is a good one. You'll like it!

A.D. recently said: "Peter, since several expressed interest in understanding Scripture theologically, i wonder if I might be self indulgent and point them to my latest post on just that?"

Since I'm in
NO position to judge anyone for being self-indulgent, here it is!


Tony Sig
A.D. begins...

The Bible is NOT:
  • A ‘pure’ reproduction of “God’s words” - That is, the writers were not transcribers. Our understanding of God’s Words in the bible are absolutely different than an Islamic understanding of Allah’s words in the Quran.
  • A list of propositional truths about God’s actions or nature – There are two ways I mean this. A) I do not support the “univocity” of God’s “being” and our “being.” And so, even if we took a certain statement from Scripture concerning God to be “true”, it is to us only analagous to what God is in his essence. B) ‘A “proof-text” does not a proposition make’
  • Inspired in the same way throughout the wholeAd hoc pastoral direction in pseudo-pauline letters are not as authoritative as sustained theological reflection in, say, Romans or the Gospel of St. John
  • A single massive book – It is a collection of books which where shaped canonically and which underwent a canonical history (btw, I happen to think theHebrew Bible order makes the most sense theologically)
  • In any way shape or form; Inerrant OR Infallable – The two are, after all, exactly the same thing. One for the ballsy fundamentalist, the other for the conservative Evangelical who wants to read the scholars. *more comments on this below*
  • Authoritative – WHAT!? That is to say, the book, lying on a coffee table, does not in itself have authority. God exerts his authority through Scripture upon the reading community. The unread text has no authority.
It's a helpful post, Anthony.

No comments:

Popular Posts