Ken Silva has blessed us with another opportunity to learn what not to do. I use him for teaching moments and this is a good one. Ken Silva decided it was in his best interest to challenge a statement which I tweeted:
@dtatusko: our authority comes not from scripture alone, but from the risen christ.
Now anyone reading this who disagrees is not left with many options. Either authority is based on only scripture as if there is no living Christ to guide us, or it is a combination of the two. Quite simple. Not for Silva who needs to read into things while offering the presumption that he's got it all together for us. So this is what Silva reads from this:
Now, I have no way to know why someone like Drew Tatusko wants to work to make people think Sola Scriptura is somehow in opposition to Jesus; however, I can judge that his reasoning is fatally fallacious spiritually.
What? A conditional statement as I made which is "not alone…but also" is not a statement of opposition where the subject and the predicate are mutually exclusive. He further confuses this by saying the following which appears to agree with the tweet I posted which got him upset:
the Risen Christ—the Lord God Almighty Who’s placed His authority and His Word above all things
The emphasis on "and" is mine to illustrate the reading problem. So either Silva is being fantastically dishonest or he has a problem with reading into a text in a process called eisegesis. What we ought to do with scripture is a process of exegesis which is extracting the best possible meaning of a text as it was conveyed at the time of its writing. I am not going to judge which of these two options we are seeing here, but it appears a combination of the two is in play. Silva is clearly building yet another strawman. For what reason I have no idea.
However, a key to the problem is a misinterpretation of one passage that has been misused for all forms of biblical inerrancy and/or infallibilism.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Because scripture has its source in God means that it has a special use for the functions that Paul names here. This in no way is meant to be interpreted as plenary verbal inspiration as Muslims understand to be the source of authority for the Qu'ran. Although Silva appeals to "the literal Greek" in his post, what he fails to understand is that the Greek text of the New Testament is an amalgamation of fragments that scholars worked very hard to assemble in what they believed was the most accurate rendering of what was likely the original source.
However, even if you go to the Greek text, which one? Modern translations come from critical editions that have been edited and assembled by groups of biblical scholars based on manuscripts and fragments scattered all over the world. It is inspired because it is animated in the same way that the Spirit of God animates the human spirit to discern the unfolding of God's revelation. This is the same Spirit that hovers over the void in Genesis. Moreover, did Paul intend his letter to Timothy to be placed on the same level as the Torah, Nev'im, and Kethuvim? To claim this is highly doubtful. Scripture is useful to be sure, but to claim that Paul was ascribing the same authority to his own letters as he ascribed to those Scriptures of the Old Testament is a judgment that Christians make.
The problem is that even if we uphold that the text is "verbally inspired" and assume we have in front of us exactly what God "said" still places the burden of the person interpreting to understand what the text was supposed to mean in the context in which it was written. Further, the translations are interpretations and reading itself is an act of interpretation. Along the path from constructing the Greek text from and into so many critical editions and manuscripts there are interpretive decisions that the reader of the English text is assuming were made correctly. This is why a literal reading or "literalism" is nothing more than a hollow ideology that is less about understanding the Bible than in ascribing authority to one's self. And this is precisely why authority cannot come from just the text, but the risen Christ who reveals the unfolding grace and love of God in the church and in the world.
While Silva claims that I have "enough formal education to confuse" myself, his own reading of his mythic infallible text relies on the work of hundreds and hundreds of biblical scholars before him who brought the text to us in the state we receive it. But I am sure he will not now say that his text is an amalgamation of other more educated and perhaps more confused scholars than myself. Which makes this claim equally as odd, and equally as misinformed as his clear desire to distort the text that lies in front of him for reasons I shall not judge.
I am not sure why Silva does what he does. It is certainly not helpful nor exactly truthful since it is a constant distortion of the text that lies in front of him. I can only pray the peace of Christ for him since it appears he does not experience much of it which is quite sad.
Related posts:
