Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

Philosophy Essay for 10th October 2014

'God is most clearly revealed to humanity through scripture' Discuss (35 marks)
In this essay, I'm going to discuss the notion that God is most clearly revealed to us through
scripture. I will look at whether or scripture or other media, such as religious experiences,
are best for revealing God. As part of this, I will discuss interpretations of scripture and how
these interpretations influence the way God is revealed and its verifiability.
First, I will tackle the notion that God is most clearly revealed through scripture as opposed
to religious experiences. Some could argue that the Bible reveals God and His nature more
clearly than religious experiences can because the Bible is inerrant - without fault or error;
something that cannot be definitively proven regarding reported experiences of the divine.
Such an argument was put forward by pastors and theologians who signed the Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in October 1978 1. This statement, signed by over 200
evangelical Christian leaders, argues that the Bible was divinely and verbally inspired. This
means it was dictated word for word by God and is therefore wholly factually correct; it is not
the human account of events. From this, it could be argued that as the Bible is correct, it
reveals God more clearly than religious experience, as the Bible is an objective text from the
one who is being revealed, not a subjective, non-empirical experience as many religious
experiences are, for example the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus. This
experience was personal to him, and it is therefore impossible to empirically prove that God
played a part in it.
However, Matthew Slick puts forward a counter argument on his website Christian
Apologetics and Research Ministry. At a fundamental level, he agrees with the signers of the
Chicago Statement; that the Bible is divinely inspired and without fault or error. However, he
writes ' Inspiration and inerrancy apply to the original writings - not to the copies. In other
words, it is the original writings that are without error. The copies, sadly, have copyist errors
in them.' 2 Based on this opinion, Slick would argue that it is not pre-determined that
scripture most clearly reveals God, as the Bibles we read today are not the inerrant original
texts. It is not certain from his article what he views as most clearly revealing God, although
in the same article he writes that 'our copies of the original documents are not perfect, but
they are very close to being so.' From this, I understand that he thinks the Bible probably
most clearly reveals God, as he regards at as near perfect.
The idea of the proposition of the Bible is closely linked to the notion of an inerrant text. The
propositional view, which takes two main forms, is popular among Roman Catholics and
more conservative Christian groups. Propositions are statements of fact, and it is argued that
revelations contained in the Bible are propositions, and are therefore beyond doubt - very
similar to the idea of Biblical inerrancy. One such example is the account of Saul's conversion
on the way to Damascus which I mentioned earlier. It is written that 'as [Saul] neared
Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the
ground and heard a voice.' 3 A proponent of the literal propositional view would suggest that
Saul actually saw a light from heaven, as that is the literal interpretation of what is said here.
1 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, from Wikipedia, available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy (Accessed:
6th October 2014)
2 Slick, M. Inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible, from 'Christian Apologetics
and Research Ministry', available at: http://carm.org/inerrancy-and-inspirationbible (Accessed: 6th October 2014)

The propositional view can be divided into two camps, each of which can put forward
different ideas concerning that notion that God is most clearly revealed to humanity through
scripture. The first group consists of those who take a literal interpretation of the Bible, a
view that is often associated with Creationism, for example. Those in this camp would argue
that the Bible is divinely and verbally inspired; it is without fault and therefore reveals the
true nature of God without the need for interpretation, as it is literally true. This view is
almost identical to that which I discussed earlier, that the Bible is inerrant and errorless.
However, this view faces a strong challenge from science. An overwhelming proportion of the
scientific community sees no way in which the Bible can be literally true - fossil records and
carbon dating, for example, can immediately debunk the idea that Earth is less than 10,000
years old. Based on this, it can be argued that if we can prove large key sections of scripture
to be false if taken literally, then we cannot say that what we learn about God and His nature
in the Bible is literally true. Those who hold this position would therefore argue that it is
scripture and religious experience both reveal God to a similar extent, as both are now
subjective and open to valid criticism.
This view can also be challenged by the Conflicting Claims Challenge, which states that if all
religions can claim propositional, inerrant truth, then none of them can be correct as they
would cancel each other out. In this case, as with the scientific challenge, scripture is
relegated to the same level as religious experience, one at which the revelation is a matter of
interpretation, as it cannot be literally true.
The second group that falls within the propositional view is that of those who view the Bible
still divinely and verbally inspired, but symbolic, allegorical, mythical and figurative in its
language. Denomination that are considered to fall under his group include Roman Catholics
and conservative Protestants. These people may argue that the correct interpretation of
scripture most clearly reveals God, but we must first arrive at such an interpretation in for
this to be the case. For example, members of the Catholic church may argue that the Biblical
account of Creation as in Genesis doesn't literally mean that there was a garden and a talking
snake and a anthropomorphised version of God walked the garden, it is all allegorical
language for the true picture. St. Thomas, whose theology is based heavily on that of
Aquinas, who in turn is responsible for many of the beliefs of the Catholic church, wrote 'one
should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to
reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous' 4. This summarises a view held by many
Catholics, that a literal interpretation of the Bible in modern times and in light of modern
science is simply ridiculous. As a result, these people may accept scientific theories such as
the Big Bang theory and evolution, which the fundamentalist would reject.
Due to this position's figurative approach to Biblical language, I cannot raise the same
criticism to it that I did to the literal position; it cannot be factually disproved by science, at
least in terms of its literary content. However, it raises that question of what in fact is the
correct interpretation. How do we discover it and how do we know when we've found it?
Based on this, one could argue that from this perspective of scripture, the Bible is just as
subjective as religious experiences are, therefore the former is not the method by which God
is most clearly revealed; scripture and religious experiences are in fact on the same level.
3 Acts 9:3-4, Holy Bible (New International Version)
4 What is the Catholic Position on Creationism and Evolution?, from 'Catholic
Bridge', available at http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.php
(Accessed: 9th October 2014)

As religious experiences and scripture are now on the same level, the latter is subject to all
the criticisms of the former. Even though the texts themselves cannot be disproven, they
cannot be proven either, hence the Bible cannot be used a source of proof for the existence of
God. As a result, the verifiability of the propositions presented is not called in to question;
the very existence of the being they describe is. This attacks the foundations of revealing
God, His actual existence, therefore it could be argued that it removes any form of disclosure
of God's nature through scripture.
The opposite view to the propositional one is the non-propositional approach. Those of this
view argue that the Bible was not divinely inspired, but is merely a human account of God's
actions in the world. As such, the emphasis is on the reader to take their own meaning from
the text, and apply it in their life. This view is often adopted by more liberal Christian groups,
such as more reformed groups like the Church of England, which holds that 'there are truths
of revelation, that is to say propositions which express the results of correct thinking
concerning revelation, but they are not themselves directly revealed.' 5 This means the there
are propositions, or statements of fact relating to the divine, but they are not divinely
revealed through scripture. If the Bible is taken in this way, the argument is similar to that of
Matthew Slick whom I discussed earlier; the Bible we read today is an imperfect record and
therefore is open to fault, therefore we cannot take its every word as propositional truth. In
this case, it could be argued that the Bible reveals God just as clearly as religious experiences
do, but no more.
The non-propositional view suffers from the same flaw as the figurative propositional
understanding; the dilemma of which is the correct interpretation. Some supporters of the
non-propositional view may argue that it is a matter of personal interpretation - we each
learn about God individually through our study of scripture. However, some interpretations
could be argued to completely misunderstand God's true nature. For example, it could be
argued that groups which demonise homosexuality have an incorrect interpretation of the
Bible, as it is clearly stated to 'love thy neighbour', a command which is not obeyed by such
interpreters. In this way, scripture is completely subjective, therefore it only reveals the same
amount about God's nature as religious experiences which is similarly subjective.
However, the idea of different interpretation could be viewed very differently. As I stated
earlier, the non-propositional view emphasises personal interpretation of the Bible,
therefore it could be seen that as God is a personal being, He is to each of us what we take
from scriptures and our religious experiences, hence there is no issue of a correct
interpretation. This understanding means that scriptures most clearly reveal God to us as,
although our interpretations are each different, they reveal God to us as He wants to be
revealed. This could also be said of religious experiences, in which case the two reveal God to
the same extent.
Drawing this discussion to a close, there are three key positions which one can take that
influence one's response to the notion that God is most clearly revealed to humanity though
scripture. The first is the literal propositional view, which assumes the Bible is factually
correct and to be taken as literally true. Proponents of this view argue that scripture most
clearly reveals God to humanity as the propositions are immediately apparent due to the
Bible literality. The second position is the figurative propositional view which suggests that
the Bible is inerrant, but is figurative in its language, therefore uses myth, symbol, analogy
and poetry to reveal God. The third view is the non-propositional position, which proposes as
Bible which is not divinely inspired, but is a human account of God's actions, therefore
reveals propositions in an indirect manner and is open to error - it is fallible. It therefore
5 Temple, W. Nature Man and God (1934), New York: St. Martin's Press, p. 317.

doesn't reveal God in a way that can be confirmed as factually correct, therefore reveals God
to the same way religious experiences do; in a subjective manner.

Potrebbero piacerti anche