Another way of stating this would be that the church certainly has something to say about what the Bible says because the Bible is the church's book. Any examination of the history of the formation of the New Testament canon cannot miss the vital role played by the church and its leaders. This does not deprecate the role of the Holy Spirit in this formation, but rather acknowledges the fact that the Spirit was at work throughout the entire process of sifting, including, excluding, and interpreting these documents. The early fathers understood the Spirit to be active not only through the writings that eventually came to be included in the canon, but also in the broader context of all the ecclesial canons. Yes, all were measured by these writings, but the Spirit was seen as living and active in the entire community.Most of the Postscript from Dr. Craig Allert's book, A High View of Scripture?
[...]
But it could not and did not function in the early church as the only standard for texts. For roughly the first four hundred years of its existence, the church had no closed canon, so the Bible could not have functioned as the sole criterion.
[...]
The closing of the canon does not obviate the fact that proper interpretation is key for the Bible to inform the church's faith and life. Simply closing the canon would have done little to counter the Gnostics, for example, because in many cases they were offering differing interpretations of the same material.
[...]
One may ask, however, if I am denying the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture by saying that the proper interpretation of Scripture is not always apparent. But the clarity of Scripture cannot be uprooted from its context.
[...]
The fathers also recognized that the Scriptures could be interpreted in different ways. This was likely one of the reasons that a closed New Testament canon was not explicitly deliberated until well into the fourth century. And even though we live today with a closed canon, that canon does not, on its own, solve the problem of differing interpretations.
[...] the Bible is not self-explanatory. And the very canonical construction of the New Testament as Scripture was a patristic accomplishment. The history of Christian doctrine is not just the story of repeating scriptural statements. Throughout doctrinal history we see the authors of heresies invariably taking their stand on Scripture, often claiming to recognize this as the sole court of appeal. These authors were not subsequently accused of being unscriptural, but rather they were accused of misusing Scripture. Thus, the point was not contended simply by appealing to the authority of Scripture, but the real battle was on the interpretation of the Bible.
Appeal to the Bible as authority is essential, but not without a similar appeal to the proper lens of interpretation. That proper lens of interpretation has been the ecclesial canons of the church in which the Bible grew. In the early church a high view of Scripture was not one that necessitated a text that functioned authoritatively outside of the church. This would have been unthinkable to the fathers. In evangelical circles today, however, we are still being encouraged to think that this was how the church fathers viewed Scripture, and how we in turn should view it. But if we are to do justice to and cherish God's word to us, we must be aware of the means God used to deliver it to us, and in that, the church has been central. Failure to account for this does not appreciate the importance of the Bible in the life of the church and its members, no matter how high people claim their doctrine of Scripture to be.
If you haven't read Bruce or Metzger, get this one, read it and start to believe that there's hope for the Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture!
No comments:
Post a Comment