When a given sentence has been artificially taken out of context…the features of the world that we take to be normal, and our usual expectations of our world (as far as [we may think] these are relevant to the utterance) serve as an implicit context (the default frame) determining our interpretation.

E. F. Kittay, Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure

(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987), 55-59.

This seems to me to be the most promising approach–divine revelation should be located in both historical events and the interpretive word which mediates these events to us. It also seems to be the approach that is most in keeping with the biblical witness itself. Nevertheless, for some time now the hermeneutic pendulum in biblical studies has continued to swing back and forth between the two poles of event and word…

What is needed, I would argue, is to bring the pendulum to a halt in the middle, where it does not lose touch with either historical event or interpretive word. Again to invoke an analogy from painting, the question can be put this way, “What is of essential importance in a portrait by a great master, the subject itself as a historical person or the masterful interpretation of the subject?” Surely both are important. Even to ask the question in this way is to assume a false dichotomy. Art critics may tend to focus on the artistry of the rendering, while historians may be more interested in what can be learned of the historical personage portrayed, but neither should mistake their particular interest for the full significance of the painting. If historians ignore the painterly aspect (that is, if they lack understanding and appreciation of the artistic medium), they may easily “misread” the portrait or unjustly criticize it as an inadequate representation of the subject. Or worse, if they discount the significance of the portrait simply because it is an artistic interpretation, they thereby cut themselves off from perhaps their only source of historical information about the subject. On the other hand, should art critics, in their appreciation of the artistic genius of the painter, lose sight of the painting’s referential character, they would miss something of the painting’s essential purpose and so prove themselves to be poor critics. A similar dynamic obtains in the study of biblical historiography. What is needed is the ability to do full justice to both the subject and the historian’s (the artist’s) particular interpretation. In other words, both event and interpretive word are important. This, at least, seems to be the Bible’s own view of the matter.

- V. Phillips Long, The Art of Biblical History

To the Christian Church, in the most catholic sense of the word, supernatural religion has always stood for something far more than a system of spiritual instruction or an instrument of moral suasion. The deep sense of sin, which is central in her faith, demands such a divine interposition in the course of natural development as shall work actual changes from guilt to righteousness, from sin to holiness, from life to death, in the sphere not merely of consciousness but of being. Here revelation is on principle inseparable from a background of historic facts, with which to bring man’s life into vital contact is indeed the main reason for its existence…

If what has been said be correct, it will follow that the proposal to declare the facts inessential betrays a lamentably defective appreciation of the soteriological character of Christianity. As a matter of fact, if one carefully examines the representations of those who claim that the results of criticism leave the religious substance of the Old Testament intact, one finds in each case that the truth left intact belongs to the sphere of natural religion and has no direct bearing on the question of sin and salvation. Such truths as monotheism and the ethical nature of God may still be found in the reconstructed Old Testament; what we look for in vain is the Gospel of redemption.

- Geerhardus Vos, “Christian Faith,” p. 299

The Bible is divine discourse act. The “divine” qualifies the literary forms of Scripture (the “micro-genres,” as it were) and so renders them “revelatory” (the “macro-genre“). Revealed truth may be said in many ways.

- Kevin Vanhoozer, “The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and Scripture’s Diverse Literary Forms”

copied from journal entry dated 1/31/00:

The key ingredient in all areas of applied organized thought - from theology to biology - is consistency.

It is impossible for the mind to accept two concepts that it recognizes as being mutually exclusive or contradictory. There may indeed be times when I act on or allow contradictory beliefs into my operative philosophy, but once I consciously recognize contradiction, I am not able to convince myself that both can be true. 

Moreover, I hold any actions taken according to contradictory beliefs to be cowardly and reprehensible. 

This idea of consistency is a major cornerstone of my personal philosophy of life, and many of my other beliefs are strongly influenced by it. 

One major problem is that it is impossible for us to hold up each concept presented to our minds and to check it against all those that we have formerly accepted. Therefore it often happens that we unwittingly operate by conflicting philosophies.

But, as if this were not a big enough problem, we also do this consciously, when we simply choose not to recognize these contradictions as such. If it is possible for us to sin against ourselves, then it seems to me that this may be the worst of such transgressions. 

I also think that it is important to note that, since our minds are not capable (as far as I know) of judging absolute truth, there are often concepts that are only in apparent contradiction with each other and, upon further examination, it may be proven that they are not. by this, I do not mean that our minds are capable of uncovering all such errors of judgment. Some of these we may never understand.

I think that one area of philosophy involving many such apparent contradictions is where religion and modern science meet. I, personally, accept most of the findings of modern science, and I also believe the message that is put forward in the Bible. Although many people now consider the two to be mutually exclusive, I believe that the concepts of science can make sense within the context of Scripture. Those scientific theories that do run in direct contradiction to  my theological beliefs I question thoroughly for error. But if I were to find one such concept of science to be completely consistent with the rest of my beliefs about science, and if I was unable to conceive of any alternative approaches, and if this idea were to be found completely inconsistent with my theological beliefs, then I would be forced to re-examine the latter for internal contradictions. I accept the teachings of both science and Christianity only to the extent that they contain neither internal contradictions, nor contradictions with each other. 

 

I post this entry here with a certain degree of trepidation because of how it might be taken by others, particularly in light of a lot of theological debate that has been going on in my current circles. I must note that my personal views on the nature of Scripture and its relationship to science have developed significantly since writing this entry. I post it here only to help myself and others to locate my present thinking within a trajectory and that I might be able to pinpoint when certain ideas first began to develop and why.
Feel free to critique what you read here and leave your comments. It will help me to continue to think about these things more carefully. But please do so knowing that this does not accurately reflect my present perspectives on the matter.

When you say that you agree with a thing in principle, you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out.

- Otto von Bismarck