This exchange illustrates the instability of Olson's position. He appeals to Jesus as his inner canon, but the only Jesus he has is the Jesus of Scripture. By repudiating the inerrancy of Scripture, the Jesus of the Gospels begins to slip away.
After all, liberals don't think Jesus spoke the words attributed to him in the Gospels. They think that's a retrojection. The church putting words in his mouth. The church inventing a backstory.
But the issue is deeper than the words of Jesus. The words of Jesus are only as good as Jesus himself. If Jesus is God Incarnate, then his words enjoy supreme authority.
By repudiating the inerrancy of Scripture, Olson now opens up fissures between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith." After all, liberals also think the NT tracks an evolutionary Christology, where the "low" Christology is more authentic than the "high" Christology. The higher the Christology, the farther removed from the historical Jesus.
Timothy Rayner Roger Olson • 4 days ago
- −
Dr Olson,
Your response appears to imply that you do not disagree with the third option. If that is true, on what basis do you determine whether a text has been erroneously recorded or not?
If you appeal to the character of Jesus as the final arbiter to the truthfulness of the record, how do you ascertain whether those texts about Jesus have been accurately recorded?
I look forward to hearing your musings about my musings about your musings!
Roger Olson Mod Timothy Rayner • 3 days ago- −
This is the old question always put to those of us who do not believe in plenary, detailed (biblical) inerrancy. But everyone, even advocates of plenary, detailed inerrancy have this issue. What is to be taken literally and what figuratively? What is error in all the copies we have but not in the original autographs? Etc. But also, I stand with Luther who said that Scripture is the cradle that hold Christ and that is especially authoritative for us Christians that promotes Christ ("was Christus treibt"). All that pertains to our salvation is infallible.
Timothy Rayner Roger Olson • 2 days ago- −
Thank you, Dr Olson, for responding.
I would like to clarify my question. I am not asking what your stance is on certain texts exegetically (your first question), nor am I asking you what your position is in regards to textual-critical issues and the preservation of the text (your second question). Those questions are of different categories. What I am asking is that if you affirm the third question Tim Reisdorf raised "Was the author in error for writing them down incorrectly?" to be true, then what method of judgement do you use to determine whether a text has been recorded accurately autographically? To restate, what determines an erroneous recording in the original text of the OT and NT?
Whilst I affirm with you and Luther that Scripture is the cradle that holds Christ, I also stand with Paul who said that the sacred writings are able to make one wise for salvation and that all of that scripture is θεόπνευστος - God-breathed (2Tim3:14-17). Based on your final statement, I can only conclude that all scripture is infallible.
Roger Olson Mod Timothy Rayner • 2 days ago- −
Yes, I believe the authors of the OT "texts of terror" recorded correctly what the Hebrew people believed.
-
Timothy Rayner Roger Olson • 2 days ago - −
Thank you. That helps me understand your position better.
Would you be able to tell me how you arrived at your conclusion that the OT 'texts of terror' reflect the beliefs of the Hebrew people but not the true character of YHWH?
Roger Olson Mod Timothy Rayner • a day ago- −
Um, I thought I had explained that in several responses to commenters' questions. The answer is--Jesus, the full and perfect revelation of the character of God.
Timothy Rayner Roger Olson • a day ago- −
I'm sorry, but I think you've missed my point. I understand that Jesus is the standard by which you evaluate the biblical data re the 'texts of terror'. What I would like to understand is how do you know that the NT texts describing Jesus are a true reflection of the character of God rather than recording correctly what the writers of the NT believed, whereas a significant number of OT texts do not reflect the character of God and actually present a false understanding of God's character?
Asked a different way: why do you trust the validity of the texts about Jesus and not the texts about YHWH? Is there something internal to the textual data that decides it for you, or is it something external?
The reason I ask this is that for those who hold that all the biblical data is 'God-breathed' and thus can be trusted when describing Jesus in His incarnation (who is identified as YHWH through OT references), and can also be trusted describing facets of the character of YHWH not fully seen in the incarnation, the position you hold seems arbitrary in trusting one text over against another.
I'm not trying to be contentious with these questions; I really do want to understand where you're coming from and why.
Roger Olson Mod Timothy Rayner • 3 hours ago- −
You are asking a question that rests on an Enlightenment-based search for certainty. I have never hidden here my Pietism which means that my Christianity is based on a personal relationship with the Savior Jesus Christ who I read about in Scripture; it is not based on the Bible as some kind of inerrant and woodenly authoritative (equally on all levels) textbook about God. Your question to me could be asked of most Christians throughout history--including Luther (who said that that is primarily authoritative in Scripture that promotes Christ). My epistemology is not foundationalist as yours seems to be.
In other words, as I've seen from many others like Peter Enns, it's subjective and arbitrary. They really do have their own "personal Jesus".
ReplyDeleteSteve, how do you address Olson's assertion about foundationalism? I run across this more frequently lately. Any exegetical argument from Scripture can simply get swept under the rug from proponents of post-structuralism.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your thoughts.
He doesn't define what he means by "foundationalism," or explain how he thinks inerrancy relates to foundationalism. So there's not much to respond to.
DeleteHi Steve,
DeleteSorry for not being more clear. I had in mind the broader argument, which Olson mentions but doesn't get into. That is, disregarding any argument with a wave of the hand because we are blinded by a western Enlightenment-based "foundationalism".
Thanks,
Chad
Yes, some folks dismiss inerrancy on the grounds that inerrancy is allegedly dependent on an Enlightenment-based concept of truth. Usually they don't bother to document their allegation from church history or philosophers of the Enlightenment.
Delete"Christianity is based on a personal relationship with the Savior Jesus Christ who I read about in Scripture; it is not based on the Bible as some kind of inerrant and woodenly authoritative (equally on all levels) textbook about God. Your question to me could be asked of most Christians throughout history--including Luther (who said that that is primarily authoritative in Scripture that promotes Christ). "
ReplyDeleteI don't think he understands Luther. It's not that Luther was terribly consistent, but it seems Luther's take on "This is my body" would be pretty wooden by Olsen's standard.