Replies

I am in agreement with your description.

That would be great, but I'm wondering if I just didn't 'splain myself very well.

You describe a process of investigation to interpret the deeper spiritual purpose of text, that on its literal surface seems problematic. To do that, you have to be open to the possibility that you do not already have a lock on ultimate truth (which is a common situation among fundamentalists).

First of all, yes, anyone coming to Scripture has to be in the position to learn something they didn't know before. Like Paul says, we see now through a glass darkly. However, that does not prohibit us from knowing true truth at some more elemental level. For example, anyone familiar with the Ten Commandments would know not to commit adultery. That's not a "deeper spiritual purpose." That's just what the text says in plain language. But if I then go to the Sermon on the Mount and realize, whoa, this applies even to my thought life? Now I have some deeper digesting to do.

But the surface level truth and the deeper spiritual truth are both true in their respective domains. Where these so-called contradictions typically come in is to deny the factual correctness of the surface truths, and that's where I have never be left without a solution using good textual analysis.

For example, consider the following:

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
(Matthew 5:1)

versus:

And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;
(Luke 6:17)

So was he on the mountain or in the plain? Easily solved, if you are familiar with the Greek. The word the KJV renders as plain is πεδινός ("pedinos"). Pedinos does not necessarily describe a big open prairie. It simply means a place level enough to get a good footing, which fits perfectly with Jesus positioning Himself in a level place where He could best deliver His sermon on the Mountain.

And in this particular example, I cannot think of a single "deeper" truth you could get to from that superficial literal truth. I am sure Origen could make something of it. He was very inventive that way. For the rest of us, this is just helping us see Jesus doing His preaching. There is no false dichotomy between surface facts and deeper spiritual truth.

For example, it is universally accepted among all of us here on either side of the Tiber that Jesus literally, physically rose from the dead. There is no doubt a kingdom's worth of spiritual treasure to derive from that fact, but the fact itself is literally true.

So yes, there are some truths of Scripture you have to have a lock on as being true, even though you may well be positioned to learn more about them. One cannot be a Christian without believing Christian truth. If that truth is always just out of reach, then there can be no such thing as a Christian.

Which gets me back to one of my big questions. I am puzzled by your use of the term "fundamentalist." I are one. :) I have been raised among them and have known them as a group for over half a century. Yes, we do believe Christian truth, because that's what Christians do, they believe in Jesus. But where you seem to think that stops the learning, that's the part I don't understand. Millions of sermons over hundreds or thousands of years. Why do all that if we were all in a condition of static knowledge? It really makes no sense to me. Of course we keep learning. We build on what we do know. But what God has given us we will confess as true, just as our prototype Peter did:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 16:16-17)

If God Himself has made us see that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, on what premise could we ever deny that truth? It is God's gift to us, and we will not let go of it, or hide it under the bushel of uncertainty. No, we will shout it from the rooftops. It is true. Jesus is the way, the Truth the Life, and no one comes to the Father except by Him.

I use the example of Biblical conflicts, Old Testament vs. New Testament and so on; simply to highlight the problems of such an approach to scripture, not to try to invalidate scripture.

As for the need to rightly divide the word of God, so that it is properly understood, of course that is correct. One of my favorite examples is the preacher who randomly selected two passages. The first said "Judas went out and hanged hisself." The second said, "Go thou and do likewise." Preacher was never heard from again. Just kidding. :) Yes, we need to hold each other to account. The outliers create their little flurry but they don't ever get control of the sheep. The sheep have one Shepherd, and they hear His voice, and won't go wandering off after a stranger. That's just how those sheep work.

But the undershepherds do have a responsibility to take good care of the flock they've been given. When they come to figurative language, they have to recognize that and teach accordingly. When they come to factual miracles, they can't shy away from them for fear of offending the current scientific orthodoxy. A lot of people voted for Heliocentrism before they voted against it. The fads of fallible man come and go:

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
(1 Peter 1:24-25)

Peace,

SR