I've not long finished reading Don Carson's book, Exegetical Fallacies, which is an excellent little book despite its tendency to fry your brain at certain points (it's certainly one of those books that I suspect that if I ever get to seminary, I'll get a lot more out of it by reading it again after a couple of years study). Anyway, my reason for writing isn't to offer a book review, but to mention something that struck me in his introduction to the book, which is focused on justifying a study on the mistakes that are often made in biblical interpretation.
There is a problem that can arise from that tactic though. One of the great, uniting truths of Christianity is (or at least should be) the complete authority of Scripture as the written Word of God. A concern that has lurked at the back of my mind when hearing of certain "secondary issues" is whether the difference in interpretation on a matter comes down to a mere giving of lip service to one side's ascent to the authority of Scripture. Could it be that some of the differences that divide Christians could be resolved by humble submission to Scripture?
Of course, it is worth acknowledging that some, and possibly most, differences can be accounted for by a silence of Scripture, but we need to be careful to ensure that we aren't blinding ourselves to a certain interpretation for any reason other than it is not warranted by God's Word, and this may involve many, no doubt including myself, entering into discussion ready and prepared to be proved mistaken, and it could involve an acknowledgement that some "secondary issues" aren't quite as secondary as we first thought.
These are very much preliminary thoughts, rather poorly expressed, so if anyone is reading this, comment would be appreciated, so do let me know what you think.
"The importance of this study can not be overestimated if we are to move towards unanimity on those matters of interpretation that still divide us. I speak to those with a high view of Scripture: it is very distressing to contemplate how many differences there are among us as to what Scripture actually says. The great, unifying truths should not of course be minimized; but the fact remains that among those who believe the canonical sixty-six books to be nothing less than the Word of God written there is a disturbing array of mutually incompatible theological opinions."This paragraph makes a point that I'd not really thought about before. In evangelical Christianity we are, rightfully in my opinion, very quick to outline the great Gospel truths that unite all true believers, and to relegate that which divides us, such as the question of when baptism should be administered or the extent of the visible signs of the Holy Spirit, to secondary issues.
There is a problem that can arise from that tactic though. One of the great, uniting truths of Christianity is (or at least should be) the complete authority of Scripture as the written Word of God. A concern that has lurked at the back of my mind when hearing of certain "secondary issues" is whether the difference in interpretation on a matter comes down to a mere giving of lip service to one side's ascent to the authority of Scripture. Could it be that some of the differences that divide Christians could be resolved by humble submission to Scripture?
Of course, it is worth acknowledging that some, and possibly most, differences can be accounted for by a silence of Scripture, but we need to be careful to ensure that we aren't blinding ourselves to a certain interpretation for any reason other than it is not warranted by God's Word, and this may involve many, no doubt including myself, entering into discussion ready and prepared to be proved mistaken, and it could involve an acknowledgement that some "secondary issues" aren't quite as secondary as we first thought.
These are very much preliminary thoughts, rather poorly expressed, so if anyone is reading this, comment would be appreciated, so do let me know what you think.
