The fuller context of the aforementioned quote provides a powerful insight, and so I thought I\u2019d provide it in full:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. Scriptures are supreme. The authority of the Church is subordinate. Creeds, councils, declarations are of lesser authority.<\/p>\n
Given the assumptions of the authors, I agree. I think the \u201cChurch\u201d here is understood in a political sense\u2013the political bodies of church history, not least the \u201cCatholic church.\u201d I certainly do not think any political church holds such authority, and the creeds and councils are still political statements. In my opinion, however, when these authors say \u201cScriptures,\u201d they really mean the Bible read Christianly, the Bible read as Christian Scripture. They would disagree that they meant this, but in my opinion they cannot see their own glasses and how those glasses color their perspective.<\/p>\n
From my point of view, these sorts of statements involve such subtle but significant misunderstandings of language that I almost don\u2019t know what to say. It poses as contradictory options things that, on deeper examination, I believe are virtually the same. I\u2019ll agree to it in the same way I agree when my son says something like, \u201cSo it\u2019s better to score a touchdown than strike out, right Dad?\u201d What I\u2019m thinking, though, is that he\u2019s a little confused.<\/p>\n
In my opinion, so many of the meanings these signatories themselves<\/em> found so authoritative in the text of Scripture were themselves products of their own Christian tradition. The signatories would deny that this is the case, but they do not properly see themselves, in my opinion.<\/p>\n
The NIV is a wonderful example of the \u201csay one thing, do another\u201d dynamic I see necessary for this hermeneutic to sustain itself.<\/p>\n
Say<\/em>: We are listening to the Bible. Our interpretations come from the plain sense of the text. We are under the authority of the text and not letting the Church have a higher authority.<\/p>\n
Do<\/em>: Let\u2019s translate \u201cform of God\u201d as \u201cvery nature God\u201d so the full divinity of Christ is not in question (Phil. 2:6)\u2013is \u201cshape\u201d really the same as \u201cvery nature\u201d?! Let\u2019s translate \u201cfirstborn of creation\u201d with \u201cfirstborn over<\/em> creation\u201d (Col. 1:15) so there is no question of whether Jesus is created or not. Let\u2019s add a word out of nowhere to \u201cdid not give\u201d so it reads \u201cdid not just<\/em> give\u201d (Jer. 7:22), even though there is no such word in the Hebrew\u2013we don\u2019t want to leave any question about whether Leviticus was written at the time of the exodus. Let\u2019s add another word out of the blue so that \u201cto the dead\u201d reads \u201cto those now dead\u201d so there is no room for the dead being saved (1 Pet. 4:6)\u2013Protestants don\u2019t believe such Catholic ideas. Again, let\u2019s add another word that isn\u2019t there in the original so that \u201cis not concerned\u201d reads \u201cis not just<\/em> concerned\u201d so we give no room for allegorical interpretation in 1 Cor 9:9-10.<\/p>\n
Most of these moves have no clear basis in the text and seems in each case to be motivated overwhelmingly to maintain the perspective of the neo-evangelical tradition, thus deconstructing the fundamental claims of this hermeneutic. When push comes to shove, those of the Chicago Statement approach consistently trump the most obvious meaning of the Bible with evangelical tradition, in my opinion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This will also be relevant to readers who have an interest in Bible translation.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-6385943335350334754?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"