Seminars On The Bible

Seminars On The Bible

I took a class that ended a few weeks ago. It was a small discussion based seminar on the Epistles of Saint Paul, though we also read the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle of Saint James for context.

It was quite funny that we read those "for context", when the entire idea of a free discussion around the texts ignores context. Let me explain. Academia has become extremely reliant on the idea of "Sola Scriptura", whether it is in reading the Bible or any other book. Now, I admit, in some ways this is quite beneficial, especially when it comes to unsubstantiated theories about authors and their works (like what Shakespeare would or wouldn't have kept in his plays). However, ignoring historical context when it comes to the Bible tells you nothing about how the passages should be interpreted.

My class was composed of Christians (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox), Jews, and Atheists. Discussion on the Letters became merely many different declarations of our individual opinions. In the opinion sharing, I was a big meanie, since I was so bent on figuring out what St. Paul was trying to say, rather than what we wanted to say about it.

In The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote: "For as an eye, either dimmed by age or weakened by any other cause, sees nothing distinctly without the aid of glasses, so (such is our imbecility) if Scripture does not direct us in our inquiries after God, we immediately turn vain in our imaginations. Those who now indulge their petulance, and refuse to take warning, will learn, when too late, how much better it had been reverently to regard the secret counsels of God, than to belch forth blasphemies which pollute the
face of heaven

As little as I tend to rely on Calvin, I really like what he says here. However, even in treating Scripture as the glasses to help us see God better, we may still have our vain imaginations when using the lenses. This is exactly what kept happening in my seminar. People read the Bible the way they want to. There is always some mystery, of course. The more you read, the deeper the Scriptures go. However, it is swiftly becoming a taboo to say that there is a wrong way to read them. Not that there is a right way, oh no. In this relativistic culture, everyone can be right, but it is now narrow minded and offensive to call a Biblical interpretation incorrect. Plus, when you believe in "Sola Scriptura", what can you do? Each side can insist they know what a passage "really" means, but in the end they each have an equal amount of biblical authority. They are both simply two individuals who disagree on a passage. That tells us nothing about what a given passage means.

Biblical authority comes with age and history. I find this is the case with many other authorities. Innovation is singular. Authority is lasting. Even evangelicals who have no love of tradition, are subject to Traditional Christianity. Why is gay marriage such a sticking point for evangelical Protestants? It is clearly an innovation. Why is a belief in the Trinity important to them? Because it is consistent with historical Christianity. Not that there is no Scriptural evidence against gay marriage or supporting the Trinity, but when looking merely at the Scriptures, we can still devote ourselves to our own vain imaginations about God. I have seen people who claim to have Biblical support for gay marriage and those who have Biblical support for a non-Trinitarian God. You can always twist something in order to see it the way you want to. What prevents this? A reliance on Tradition. Holy men over hundreds of years have never understood the given passages as supportive of fads of the times. Tradition is the clear context left out of modern Biblical scholarship. 

When Paul tells the Corinthians, "you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God," what else do we know it to refer to but the Orthodox service of Baptism and Chrismation? Now if we merely claim that this passage refers to Baptism, someone else may disagree. But if we point to the historical understanding the Church of Christ understood for it, everything becomes clear. 

We must always keep our reliance on Tradition for Biblical interpretation. When we fail to do this, we bow to the equal validity of any interpretation. I've heard some real doozies. Speak to any atheist about their reading of the Scriptures and you'll see what I mean. 

I realize as a proof this is somewhat incomplete, but I'd rather not get too scholastic on this topic right now.