Alastair, I cannot say I truly understand the entirety of what you've written here, but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate it. As I alluded to in another comment, I had a crisis of faith in seminary, and it wasn't until I found and fell in love with the early church fathers and mothers that I found my footing again. However, it doesn't mean I don't struggle to wrap my head around this very topic, that our views of historicity are foreign to the biblical writers, yet that doesn't mean the texts are errant or flawed. I've just had to learn what it means to have faith that the words we've been given are tried and true. Not a mindless and heartless faith, mind you, but one that has been tested, time and time again.
I've also learned as a parent, even if I *did* believe the Scriptures were errant, I don't think I could ever teach my children that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but also say we can't trust the Bible as the Word of God in the same breath. Not saying that's the only reason I believe what I do, but it definitely made me reckon with it all.
Also, Susannah, I have no history or experience with Carnevale, but you two are in the running for the best writing couple. I've appreciated both of y'all's work for years now, and I love seeing it together like this.
Yes, these are challenging issues to think through, not merely intellectually, but spiritually. Our trust in Scripture can't be detached from our confidence in its Author. The idea that we have a flawed, unreliable, and erring text really will shake our confidence in the God who inspired it.
So much of my own work depends upon fundamental and deep confidence in the reliability and inspiration of Scripture down to the smallest details. But I've often found that modern assumptions about what this requires of Scripture don't actually match up to the reality of Scripture. There is a real danger of having a 'high view of Scripture' that functions as a commitment to an abstract *doctrine* of Scripture, rather than the more complicated concrete reality of the actual scriptures that God has given us.
I've just read this post after following the link from your most recent update.
I am currently wrestling a great deal with many of the issues of the relationship between history and artistry described here and in your recent post.I really resonate with what David Marshall says above and suspect I am I a very similar place.
I found all you have said above helpful.
I would love to understand better. I'd be very grateful if you could point me in the direction of articles/books you think explore the issues well.
Thanks for all the time you find to serve random readers in your busy schedule.
Alastair, I cannot say I truly understand the entirety of what you've written here, but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate it. As I alluded to in another comment, I had a crisis of faith in seminary, and it wasn't until I found and fell in love with the early church fathers and mothers that I found my footing again. However, it doesn't mean I don't struggle to wrap my head around this very topic, that our views of historicity are foreign to the biblical writers, yet that doesn't mean the texts are errant or flawed. I've just had to learn what it means to have faith that the words we've been given are tried and true. Not a mindless and heartless faith, mind you, but one that has been tested, time and time again.
I've also learned as a parent, even if I *did* believe the Scriptures were errant, I don't think I could ever teach my children that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but also say we can't trust the Bible as the Word of God in the same breath. Not saying that's the only reason I believe what I do, but it definitely made me reckon with it all.
Also, Susannah, I have no history or experience with Carnevale, but you two are in the running for the best writing couple. I've appreciated both of y'all's work for years now, and I love seeing it together like this.
Yes, these are challenging issues to think through, not merely intellectually, but spiritually. Our trust in Scripture can't be detached from our confidence in its Author. The idea that we have a flawed, unreliable, and erring text really will shake our confidence in the God who inspired it.
So much of my own work depends upon fundamental and deep confidence in the reliability and inspiration of Scripture down to the smallest details. But I've often found that modern assumptions about what this requires of Scripture don't actually match up to the reality of Scripture. There is a real danger of having a 'high view of Scripture' that functions as a commitment to an abstract *doctrine* of Scripture, rather than the more complicated concrete reality of the actual scriptures that God has given us.
I've just read this post after following the link from your most recent update.
I am currently wrestling a great deal with many of the issues of the relationship between history and artistry described here and in your recent post.I really resonate with what David Marshall says above and suspect I am I a very similar place.
I found all you have said above helpful.
I would love to understand better. I'd be very grateful if you could point me in the direction of articles/books you think explore the issues well.
Thanks for all the time you find to serve random readers in your busy schedule.