Packer Gold
“The subjectivist way of affirming the authority of Scripture, as the source of the teaching that now needs to be adjusted, is precisely a denying of Scripture’s authority from the objectivist point of view, and clarity requires us to say so. The relative authority of ancient religious expertise, now to be revamped in our post-Christian, multifaith, evolving Western world, is one view.
The absolute authority of God’s unchanging utterances, set before us to be learned, believed, and obeyed as the mainstream church has always done, never mind what the world thinks, is the other. What are represented as different “interpretations” are in fact reflections of what is definitive: in the one view, the doctrinal and moral teaching of Scripture is always final for Christian people; in the other view, it never is. What is definitive for the exponents of that view is not what the Bible says, as such, but what their own minds come up with as they seek to make Bible teaching match the wisdom of the world.
Each view of biblical authority sees the other as false and disastrous, and is sure that the long-term welfare of Christianity requires that the other view be given up and left behind as quickly as possible. The continuing conflict between them, which breaks surface in the disagreement about same-sex unions, is a fight to the death, in which both sides are sure that they have the church’s best interests at heart.”
Indeed it is
Michael, I agreed with the second view until I get to the last paragraph. A fight until the death makes both sides sound rigidly fundamentalistic. Is there a middle ground or do you personally believe one side is correct and the other wrong?
“The continuing conflict between them, which breaks surface in the disagreement about same-sex unions, is a fight to the death…”
He is very right here. The “discussion” about same-s3x unions only comes out of a view that Scripture is somewhat “flexible” in its meaning.
If we take Scripture at face value, there would be no need for “discussion” – we would call it sin and let the hearer deal with the consequences of that statement. We would have no need for some pastor (thinking Rob Bell here) to tell us that “the Bible doesn’t mean that..”, except to mark them out as false prophets.
We would also need to acknowledge that the same Scripture addresses the qualifications of pastors who are divorced (outside of adultery caused by the other), or host of other issues that we have allowed into the church.
Andrew,
Both sides are rigidly fundamentalist in a fashion.
On one hand, the Bible is the final authority that informs reason and conscience.
On the other, reason and conscious are the final authority and the Bible informs, but does not dictate faith and practice.
The way this plays out in real life is seen in the same sex marriage dispute.
One side says the Bible forbids this, thus I must forbid it. Even though I love my gay friends, God has spoken and I must submit to His word.
The other side says I love my gay friends and want them to be happy…my “love” is the arbiter of what is right and the Bible is not authoritative to me in this area.
my copy arrived today and i have never read a better observation on the wrath of God (32 pages in) – wrath is one of the attributes of God (as opposed to some sort of petulant, childish fit)… if one needs the words that explain God’s wrath to a pew sitter like me… buy the book 🙂
I read Knowing God in 1985 and it really blessed me. I need to read it again.