Crawford Toy a "heretic" not a hero - Mohler

[Greg Wills]

It was the difference between geology and Genesis that drove Toy to adopt his new view of inspiration. He recognized that it was a new view. He did not claim that his view was really that of the premodern church. He believed that as scientific knowledge advanced, the church’s view of scripture must advance with it. (For an excellent survey of the church’s view of inspiration and inerrancy over the centuries, see John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers-McKim Proposal, 1982.)

As for Toy’s confession to William James, it is in a letter from Toy to James, 22 July 1907, in the James papers at Harvard’s Houghton Library.

[Dave Roberts]

First, I did not take any offense that TD typed my name four times. I've been lectured to by some of the best. Maybe I sense his frustration here.
Second, the equation of parable with allegory is a dangerous statement in and of itself. To use that term means that every detail in a parable has a symbolic meaning in the present. Also, the claim that every parable is preceded by a note telling us that it is a parable is a bit suspicious. There are several short parables in Mark 2, for example, that have no mention of the word to introduce them, like the cloth and the garment or the wine and wineskins. See also Mark 4:26ff. Most of the time, parables are identified, but your argument fails if you get dogmatic about it.
Third, I see Jonah as a probable parable. The emphasis of the story is never on the "fish story." It's on God's concern even for the enemies of his people, and Jonah cannot find it in his heart to miss the wiener roast he wanted to have on the ashes of Ninevah. But, I'm not going to be dogmatic on that one. The fact that Jesus mentioned Jonah in Matthew 12 is neither a support or denial to literalism but the use of a common literary reference that allowed him to use the story to convict the scribes and Pharisees who came with a demand for a sign.
I realize that this will not satisfy you, TD, but to quote Martin Luther: Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anderes.

[Dave Roberts]

First, I did not take any offense that TD typed my name four times. I've been lectured to by some of the best. Maybe I sense his frustration here.
Second, the equation of parable with allegory is a dangerous statement in and of itself. To use that term means that every detail in a parable has a symbolic meaning in the present. Also, the claim that every parable is preceded by a note telling us that it is a parable is a bit suspicious. There are several short parables in Mark 2, for example, that have no mention of the word to introduce them, like the cloth and the garment or the wine and wineskins. See also Mark 4:26ff. Most of the time, parables are identified, but your argument fails if you get dogmatic about it.
Third, I see Jonah as a probable parable. The emphasis of the story is never on the "fish story." It's on God's concern even for the enemies of his people, and Jonah cannot find it in his heart to miss the wiener roast he wanted to have on the ashes of Ninevah. But, I'm not going to be dogmatic on that one. The fact that Jesus mentioned Jonah in Matthew 12 is neither a support or denial to literalism but the use of a common literary reference that allowed him to use the story to convict the scribes and Pharisees who came with a demand for a sign.
I realize that this will not satisfy you, TD, but to quote Martin Luther: Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anderes.

[Bruce Gourley]

It was the difference between geology and Genesis that drove Toy to adopt his new view of inspiration. He recognized that it was a new view. He did not claim that his view was really that of the premodern church. He believed that as scientific knowledge advanced, the church’s view of scripture must advance with it. (For an excellent survey of the church’s view of inspiration and inerrancy over the centuries, see John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers-McKim Proposal, 1982.)

As for Toy’s confession to William James, it is in a letter from Toy to James, 22 July 1907, in the James papers at Harvard’s Houghton Library.

By the time Southern Baptists split from their northern counterparts, Baptist leaders in the South had largely acquiesced to the post-Reformation construction of scripture as primarily literal in nature ... in order to support their pro-slavery views. The South's newfound solidarity in a literal-only interpretation found expression in their harsh criticisms of northern Baptists whom they accused of interpreting scripture in a contextual manner that resulted in abolitionist views. (See Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.)

When the Civil War ended, Southern Baptists by and large stuck to their guns regarding a literal Bible (and their view that blacks were an inferior race, accordingly). Thus when Toy following the war gradually drifted into a more nuanced, contextual interpretation of scripture, he found himself at odds with the biblical literalism that only in the past century had become orthodox dogma in the South.

Toy's views in and of themselves did not overly alarm his fellow professors at SBTS. Rather, his resistance to the literalism that by-then pervaded the South posed a larger problem: since the "general" view of Southern Baptists was that of biblical literalness, non-conformity with the majority view potentially threatened fund-raising at a time when money was tight.

Ironically, Reformed Christians - not Baptists - initially challenged Toy over his beliefs in a public manner. Alarmed for the future security of the seminary, Toy's colleagues gradually backed away from him.

Toy's non-literal views of scripture ultimately reflected in practice the pre-Reformation of a dynamic text that could not be contained by any one interpretive method, and a view in which a literal understanding was far from orthodox. The difference between the pre-Reformation norm of scripture as non-literal and the 19th century non-literal scriptural movement was that the former view arose from a pre-scientific philosophical approach to scripture, while the later arose from a scientific, rationalistic approach to scripture.

[T. D. Webb]

First, I did not take any offense that TD typed my name four times. I've been lectured to by some of the best. Maybe I sense his frustration here.

No frustration here or offense intended, Dave. Dale Carnegie used to say, "A person's name is to him the sweetest sound in any language." I don't know that I agree with Carnegie's remark, but over the years I have developed the habit of addressing folks with whom I am speaking or writing, by name. For me, it is meant as a sign of respect. However, the practice obviously hit a sour chord with Big Daddy. That said, while I may disagree with your position on issues here, I have personal respect for you.

Second, the equation of parable with allegory is a dangerous statement in and of itself. To use that term means that every detail in a parable has a symbolic meaning in the present.

"To use that term means every detail in a parable has a symbolic meaning in the present" (my emphasis) How did you arrive at that definition, Dave? My dictionary lists "parable" as follows:

par·a·ble (parÆÃ bÃl), n. 1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

The same dictionary lists the terms "parable" and "allegory" as synonyms. However, there is good news which should soothe your concerns about a perceived "dangerous statement" in the equation. Notwithstanding the criteria you impose on the term, "allegory", nothing is mentioned about "every detail" in an allegory having a symbolic meaning in the present.

Also, the claim that every parable is preceded by a note telling us that it is a parable is a bit suspicious. There are several short parables in Mark 2, for example, that have no mention of the word to introduce them, like the cloth and the garment or the wine and wineskins. See also Mark 4:26ff. Most of the time, parables are identified, but your argument fails if you get dogmatic about it.

Dave, now you are confusing the terms "parable" and "simile". Jesus' illustrations to the Pharisees in Mark 2 (vv. 17, 19, 21-22, are NOT parables, but similes. However, Jesus' commentary in verses 25-28 is a parable which refers to what I believe was an actual experience of David (See 1Samuel 21) You are correct in saying that not all parables are listed explicitly as such. However, all parables, by definition, have the similar characteristics (short story which illustrates a truth, religious principal, or moral lesson), so they are easily identified as such.

Third, I see Jonah as a probable parable. The emphasis of the story is never on the "fish story." It's on God's concern even for the enemies of his people, and Jonah cannot find it in his heart to miss the wiener roast he wanted to have on the ashes of Ninevah. But, I'm not going to be dogmatic on that one. The fact that Jesus mentioned Jonah in Matthew 12 is neither a support or denial to literalism but the use of a common literary reference that allowed him to use the story to convict the scribes and Pharisees who came with a demand for a sign.

I can agree with you in one respect, Dave. Jesus' uses the narrative of Jonah as a parable for His own physical death and resurrection. However, I see no reason to disbelieve Jesus' declarative, "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40) The troubling aspect of your conclusion is that if one considers Jonah's story as a ficticious illustration, then, based on Jesus' analogy, how can one deny the possibility that Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection were also figurative, but not actual events.

I realize that this will not satisfy you, TD, but to quote Martin Luther: Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anderes.

From what I know about Martin Luther, Dave, you would most likely be making your "stand" sans the presence of "The Great Reformer". . .

In His Grace and Peace,

[Greg Wills]

Toy's views in and of themselves did not overly alarm his fellow professors at SBTS. Rather, his resistance to the literalism that by-then pervaded the South posed a larger problem: since the "general" view of Southern Baptists was that of biblical literalness, non-conformity with the majority view potentially threatened fund-raising at a time when money was tight.

Boyce and Broadus were indeed alarmed by Toy's views. When Toy urged the seminary to hire Abraham Jaeger, Boyce objected to Jaeger's views of inspiration, which as it later turned out, Toy shared: "We must be very circumspect as to the position of influence which we give to a man not thoroughly sound. I had rather put an ignorant orthodox man in the chair of a professor than the most gifted of men if unsound. Dr. [E. G.] Robinson could not have done Rochester more harm than he did had he been the veriest ignoramus. And in Jaeger's case his unsoundness comes in the most serious direction for scholarship to dread, that of inspiration."

Broadus explained to others that Toy’s view of inspiration left his religious convictions unanchored and that “there was no telling” whether he would become a Unitarian. Boyce was making similar explanations. S. M. Provence heard from persons who traveled recently with Boyce that Boyce believed that Toy’s beliefs were now “rotten to the core.”

Ironically, Reformed Christians - not Baptists - initially challenged Toy over his beliefs in a public manner. Alarmed for the future security of the seminary, Toy's colleagues gradually backed away from him.

It was New York's Independent, the promoter of liberalism political and religious, that first brought Toy's views to public notice in 1878. The Baptist Courier and the Religious Herald published concerns about Toy in 1878 also, though they kept his name out of the paper. By the time the Reformed paper noticed Toy's views, he was already planning to resign.

Toy's non-literal views of scripture ultimately reflected in practice the pre-Reformation of a dynamic text that could not be contained by any one interpretive method, and a view in which a literal understanding was far from orthodox. The difference between the pre-Reformation norm of scripture as non-literal and the 19th century non-literal scriptural movement was that the former view arose from a pre-scientific philosophical approach to scripture, while the later arose from a scientific, rationalistic approach to scripture.

This is an inaccurate understanding of premodern views of scripture. Premodern commentaries make this clear without having to read very far. Woodbridge's book answers it well also.

[Dave Roberts]

Second, the equation of parable with allegory is a dangerous statement in and of itself. To use that term means that every detail in a parable has a symbolic meaning in the present.

"To use that term means every detail in a parable has a symbolic meaning in the present" (my emphasis) How did you arrive at that definition, Dave? My dictionary lists "parable" as follows:

par·a·ble (parÆÃ bÃl), n. 1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

The same dictionary lists the terms "parable" and "allegory" as synonyms. However, there is good news which should soothe your concerns about a perceived "dangerous statement" in the equation. Notwithstanding the criteria you impose on the term, "allegory", nothing is mentioned about "every detail" in an allegory having a symbolic meaning in the present.

One of the best books on parables is that by A. M. Hunter. He defined: "...a parable is a figurative saying: sometimes a simile ('Be wise as serpents'), sometimes a metaphor ('Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees'). What we call parables are simpy expansions of these" (Introducing ther Parables, p. 9). He further noted, "The difference to remember is that in an allegory (like Addison's Vision of Mirza or Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress) each detail of the story has its counterpart in the meaning, whereas in a parable (like the Lost Coin or the Friend at Midnight) story and meaning meet not at every point but only at one central point" (p. 10).

I hope that clarifies the distinction I make between the two.

[Bruce Gourley]

Toy's views in and of themselves did not overly alarm his fellow professors at SBTS. Rather, his resistance to the literalism that by-then pervaded the South posed a larger problem: since the "general" view of Southern Baptists was that of biblical literalness, non-conformity with the majority view potentially threatened fund-raising at a time when money was tight.

Boyce and Broadus were indeed alarmed by Toy's views. When Toy urged the seminary to hire Abraham Jaeger, Boyce objected to Jaeger's views of inspiration, which as it later turned out, Toy shared: "We must be very circumspect as to the position of influence which we give to a man not thoroughly sound. I had rather put an ignorant orthodox man in the chair of a professor than the most gifted of men if unsound. Dr. [E. G.] Robinson could not have done Rochester more harm than he did had he been the veriest ignoramus. And in Jaeger's case his unsoundness comes in the most serious direction for scholarship to dread, that of inspiration."

Broadus explained to others that Toy’s view of inspiration left his religious convictions unanchored and that “there was no telling” whether he would become a Unitarian. Boyce was making similar explanations. S. M. Provence heard from persons who traveled recently with Boyce that Boyce believed that Toy’s beliefs were now “rotten to the core.”

Ironically, Reformed Christians - not Baptists - initially challenged Toy over his beliefs in a public manner. Alarmed for the future security of the seminary, Toy's colleagues gradually backed away from him.

It was New York's Independent, the promoter of liberalism political and religious, that first brought Toy's views to public notice in 1878. The Baptist Courier and the Religious Herald published concerns about Toy in 1878 also, though they kept his name out of the paper. By the time the Reformed paper noticed Toy's views, he was already planning to resign.

Toy's non-literal views of scripture ultimately reflected in practice the pre-Reformation of a dynamic text that could not be contained by any one interpretive method, and a view in which a literal understanding was far from orthodox. The difference between the pre-Reformation norm of scripture as non-literal and the 19th century non-literal scriptural movement was that the former view arose from a pre-scientific philosophical approach to scripture, while the later arose from a scientific, rationalistic approach to scripture.

This is an inaccurate understanding of premodern views of scripture. Premodern commentaries make this clear without having to read very far. Woodbridge's book answers it well also.

Your own research on the 1876 Jaeger incident revealed that Broadus and Boyce shared differences of opinion regarding the hiring of Jaeger; Broadus did not oppose the suggestion of Toy and students that Jaeger be hired, but Boyce did.

Toy remained a committed churchman, and according to your own research, two Baptist newspapers in 1878 ran editorials supportive of Toy's views of inspiration. Missouri's Central Baptist dismissed as insignificant Toy's belief that Moses did not not write the book of Deuteronomy, while the SC Baptist Courier also ran a supportive editorial. Also in 1878, one pastor in SC wrote the seminary expressing concern about Toy (and Whitsitt). Broadus did not bother to reply, and Boyce defended Whitsitt (but not Toy, according to your research). A second pastor, W. B. Carson, learned of the exchanges, and wrote letters of warning about SBTS in the Religious Herald and Baptist Courier; the editor of the Religious Herald also expressed concern. Then you identity a anonymous letter written in December of that year (the author was later identified) who wrote an editorial about an unnamed Baptist professor who rejected the Mosaic authorship of some of the Pentateuch. And you conclude that her letter "set in motion the events that resulted in Toy's resignation."

Your identification of the trigger point is one interpretation, but not the only one. Boyce's concern with Toy's views coincided with the seminary's move to Louisville in 1877 and in the context of the impact they might have on fund-raising. In 1878, Toy's views challenging a literal-only approach to scripture evoked no response from Broadus and elicited the concern of (according to your own research) exactly four individuals in Southern Baptist life outside SBTS (two pastors, one editor, and one teacher at the Richmond Female Academy who offered vague accusations). The moving of the Toy controversy into the public eye did not really occur until the 1879 lesson in the Sunday School Times. A news publication of the Reformed Church noticed Toy's piece, and attacked Toy, and some Baptists in the North soon echoed alarm. SBTS faculty felt forced to deal with the now-public Toy controversy. Toy maintained his belief in the authority of scripture, but eventually he was dismissed because his view of the inspiration of scripture was not that which was generally accepted by most Southern Baptists. See this journal article.

As to pre-modern views of scripture, early church commentaries make it clear that a literal meaning was only one of a buffet of interpretive paradigms, and not the dominant one.

[Stephen Fox]

Thanks for this article

It consumed me for about 30 minutes this morning.

This whole exchange between you and Willis has been quite educational; and I appreciate the witness of Weaver and Webb as well.
Whatever friends you have with BHHS or out there monitoring this discussion, I do hope that one thing coming from this will be a conversation with Furman's John Shelley to see if his article on Herbert Gezork may be a good fit for BHHS publication.
Half a century later, his experience with Baptists in the South was quite similar to Crawford Toy.

[Stephen Fox]

with a fairly sterling comment in response

http://theopoet4camp.blogspot.com/2010/ ... lical.html

[Greg Wills]

As to pre-modern views of scripture, early church commentaries make it clear that a literal meaning was only one of a buffet of interpretive paradigms, and not the dominant one.

There is a great divide between modern critical views of scripture and premodern, precritical views.

Many in the early church and middle ages held that the scripture had more than one level of meaning. Some like Origen held that the literal (historical) level of meaning sometimes had divinely inspired absurdities and contradictions, which the Holy Spirit placed there deliberately to call attention to the presence of deeper levels of meaning. But this is very different than any critical or postcritical theory that I've encountered. For Origen, the very errors are inspired by the Spirit. For modern or postmodern critics, the errors are entirely attributable to the human author. As best I can tell you have a view of the Bible quite similar to Toy's, which is dissimilar to that of Origen and medieval exegetes.

Many medieval interpreters held that the Holy Spirit inspired multiple meanings in every text. But they did not hold, as you seem to, that the text and its meanings were dynamic. The text's meanings were stable and permanent, even if they were not always obvious to the interpreters. Meaning was durable; the interpreter's job was to discover the meanings that the Spirit invested in each text.

And as for the historical level of meaning, the premodern interpreters held that (excepting Origenists' absurdity texts) the literal, historical meaning was literally and historically true. Just because they held to multiple levels of meaning did not mean that they viewed the historical meaning less true or reliable that other levels (again excepting Origenists absurdity texts).

Toy divided the text's real religious meaning from its literal, historical meaning. But he didn't believe that the Holy Spirit in any direct fashion oversaw the human author's writing. And even the text's true religious meaning, in Toy's view, was inspired in such a general and diffuse way that it is a very different kind of inspiration than that of allegorical meaning of the premodern allegorists. Toy's commentaries are vastly different, qualitatively different, than those of Origen or Gregory of Nyssa. It should be no surprise, since they had such vastly different views of the character of scripture.

My own view differs substantially from both Toy and the allegorists. I agree with the Protestant Reformers who rejected the common medieval belief that the Spirit inspired multiple levels of meaning in every text. They rather held that Spirit inspired in every text the historical meaning, which formed the warp and woof of the religious meaning and could not be separated from it, and that since the Bible in its entirety was inspired, it was God's very word. And if God spoke it, it is true and without error.

[Stephen Fox]

Somebody get a fax or telegram to Mohler and Paige Patterson:

Kat Allen, the biographer of Lottie Moon will have a letter in the March issue of Baps Today.

From an exchange of comments yesterday at www.tonycartledge.com

February 2, 2010 8:58 AM
Gene S said...
Catherine Allen has just sent an email to me in response to my conjecture on the Lottie Moon / Toy relationship. She has submitted a response to Baptists Today which she hopes will be published soon.

To give you a "heads up," she knows of NO COMMENTS by Miss Moon along theological lines. Just as I predicted, Lottie was far more concerned with sharing the Gospel than splitting theological hairs.

Although she had to be a woman of great courage and "foreordained" to minister, I would be surprised that she ever backed off from any man trying to tell her what to do. This has been true through the history of dedicated Baptist women. When men were so concerned with local church buildings and numbers, wonderful women cared about the souls of mankind--no matter what the race or color.

Hence, our first Home Mission efforts were toward the Indians--when white men just wanted to take their land and sentence them to reservations and loss of culture / heritage.

At the time of Lottie Moon the Chinese were considered a low rung of world society. No one cared to admit they had a culture and heritage which actually precursed that of the "civilized" Western world.

Why is it we always seem to want to rise on the backs and necks of others?????

February 2, 2010 6:03 PM
Tony W. Cartledge said...
Catherine's letter is scheduled to be in the March issue of BT. I haven't mentioned it previously, not wanting to steal her thunder.

February 2, 2010 10:27 PM

[Bruce Gourley]

As to pre-modern views of scripture, early church commentaries make it clear that a literal meaning was only one of a buffet of interpretive paradigms, and not the dominant one.

There is a great divide between modern critical views of scripture and premodern, precritical views.

Many in the early church and middle ages held that the scripture had more than one level of meaning. Some like Origen held that the literal (historical) level of meaning sometimes had divinely inspired absurdities and contradictions, which the Holy Spirit placed there deliberately to call attention to the presence of deeper levels of meaning. But this is very different than any critical or postcritical theory that I've encountered. For Origen, the very errors are inspired by the Spirit. For modern or postmodern critics, the errors are entirely attributable to the human author. As best I can tell you have a view of the Bible quite similar to Toy's, which is dissimilar to that of Origen and medieval exegetes.

Many medieval interpreters held that the Holy Spirit inspired multiple meanings in every text. But they did not hold, as you seem to, that the text and its meanings were dynamic. The text's meanings were stable and permanent, even if they were not always obvious to the interpreters. Meaning was durable; the interpreter's job was to discover the meanings that the Spirit invested in each text.

And as for the historical level of meaning, the premodern interpreters held that (excepting Origenists' absurdity texts) the literal, historical meaning was literally and historically true. Just because they held to multiple levels of meaning did not mean that they viewed the historical meaning less true or reliable that other levels (again excepting Origenists absurdity texts).

Toy divided the text's real religious meaning from its literal, historical meaning. But he didn't believe that the Holy Spirit in any direct fashion oversaw the human author's writing. And even the text's true religious meaning, in Toy's view, was inspired in such a general and diffuse way that it is a very different kind of inspiration than that of allegorical meaning of the premodern allegorists. Toy's commentaries are vastly different, qualitatively different, than those of Origen or Gregory of Nyssa. It should be no surprise, since they had such vastly different views of the character of scripture.

My own view differs substantially from both Toy and the allegorists. I agree with the Protestant Reformers who rejected the common medieval belief that the Spirit inspired multiple levels of meaning in every text. They rather held that Spirit inspired in every text the historical meaning, which formed the warp and woof of the religious meaning and could not be separated from it, and that since the Bible in its entirety was inspired, it was God's very word. And if God spoke it, it is true and without error.

That's a bit of a stretch of the historical record. The first five centuries witnessed an amazing diversity of scriptural interpretation and meaning that hundreds of years of church councils failed to resolve (and instead resulted in numerous canons, a multiplicity of interpretive approaches and nuances, and numerous charges and counter-charges of heresy - many of these divisions resulting in both a scriptural and geographical a geographical division within Christendom).

Even more interestingly, you refer to Origen in an apparent attempt to establish an early apologetic for, in effect, an inerrant text, although Origin was widely viewed as a heretic. His usage of scripture was unorthodox, and at times entirely misleading: in defending interpretations of Jesus being born of a "virgin" (early church fathers struggled with enforcing the usage of "virgin" rather than the Old Testament "young woman"), Origen claimed that the usage of the Hebrew "almah" in Deuteronomy 22 clearly applied to a "virgin." However ... there is no Hebrew word "almah" in Deut 22. Yet this was a minor issue compared to Origen's unorthodox Christology, unorthodox trinitarian views and his belief in reincarnation. While he believed the Bible was divinely inspired, the foundation of his belief was as a mystic or spiritualist. He believed humans could become like God through recognizing human weakness and trusting God, and being aided by angels. In short, Origin's theology makes Crawford Toy's theology seem very, very conservative.

In the larger perspective, allegory, of course, was the dominate motif in the early church, and accepted by most early church fathers. The first serious challenge to this interpretive paradigm arose in Antioch in the 4th century with the rise of the typology methodology of interpretation. Associated with the Antioch school of thought were folks such as Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Arius and Nestorius (of course, the latter two were formally recognized as heretics, the former for denying the Trinity and the later for his unorthodox Christology).

Antioch typologists called their interpretive principle "theoria," and its rules were: 1) the literal sense of scripture must not be abandoned wholesale but also was not always proper, and 2) a connection between historical events and spiritual meaning was imperative. The use of the typological interpretive method was as a way to bridge the Old and New testaments, establishing an interpretive continuum between the two.

Chrysostom, for example, expressed his limited literal view of scripture by seeking a literal sense first, and in cases where a literal understanding of scripture was inadequate, fell back to the standard allegorical motif.

Allegory (first and foremost) and typology (secondarily, other than from the period of about 1000-1300 AD) then dominated biblical interpretation into the Reformation era, after typology became influential (again) in Calvinistic thought.

Jonathan Edwards in the 18th century provides a good example of how typological interpretation remained popular among Calvinists, and the gradual transition from the limited-literal interpretation of scripture advocated by typologists to the strictly literal interpretive biblical paradigm that emerged in the 19th century. An ardent typologist, Edwards followed the Antioch school of thought in advocating a historical view of scripture from which to build typology, but did not insist that the historicity of the bible always should be understood in a literal sense. Edwards recognized that contradictory Old Testament accounts of certain events could not all be literally correct, and in a nod to the growing body of modern science, he often opted for non-literal views of passages that did not, in his mind, pass the test of science (and in this way, was not unlike Toy).

Now, finally, I am curious: since you are a fan of Protestant biblical thought, which Protestant Reformer's canon do you accept as the genuine canon?

[Dave Roberts]

[

I realize that this will not satisfy you, TD, but to quote Martin Luther: Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anderes.

From what I know about Martin Luther, Dave, you would most likely be making your "stand" sans the presence of "The Great Reformer". . .

In His Grace and Peace,

T. D., remember if Luther had had his way, your inerrant New Testament would have omitted the Book of James. It was too anti-Pauline to suit Luther. I would be careful claiming Luther for inerrancy.

[Haruo]

Right on Dave. Some Lutheran Bibles even as late as the 1800s still had James (and I think maybe Jude and Revelation?) in a sort of appendix, similar to the way Protestants generally handled the Deuterocanonicals if they handled them at all. I think this was fairly normal for the Scandinavians.

[T. D. Webb]

I realize that this will not satisfy you, TD, but to quote Martin Luther: Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anderes.

T. D., remember if Luther had had his way, your inerrant New Testament would have omitted the Book of James. It was too anti-Pauline to suit Luther. I would be careful claiming Luther for inerrancy.

While you are being careful, Dave, you might check out what Luther actually said about the subject:

"I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers has erred." (WA, 2. 618. Contra malignum Iohannis Eccii iudicium ... Martini Lutheri defensio 11519) (emphasis mine).

"Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe in neither the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures that I have adduced, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God; and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen." (WA, 7, 836-38.)

[Greg Wills]

I must be mistaken as to your point. I thought you were arguing that Toy's view of scripture was more consistent the church's historical approach, and so more orthodox, than the views of Boyce and other advocates of inerrancy. I explained that Toy's view differed fundamentally from most in the history of the church. I thought also that you were appealing to the fact that many in the premodern church embraced allegorical meanings as evidence that they were not inerrantists. I therefore explained that unlike Toy, the allegorists believed in the inerrancy of both the allegorical and the historical meanings. Even Origen's insistence on inspired contradictions at the historical level is very unlike Toy. I thought you were claiming that Boyce and the inerrantists were the heretics with new modern theories, and that Toy was much closer to the traditional orthodox approach of the premodern church. So I was merely trying to show that Toy's view differed sharply from premodern approaches, and that premodern interpreters viewed the Bible as inerrant.

[Stephen Fox]

place Schleiermacher in this timeline, matrix, spectrum???

[Bruce Gourley]

I must be mistaken as to your point. I thought you were arguing that Toy's view of scripture was more consistent the church's historical approach, and so more orthodox, than the views of Boyce and other advocates of inerrancy. I explained that Toy's view differed fundamentally from most in the history of the church. I thought also that you were appealing to the fact that many in the premodern church embraced allegorical meanings as evidence that they were not inerrantists. I therefore explained that unlike Toy, the allegorists believed in the inerrancy of both the allegorical and the historical meanings. Even Origen's insistence on inspired contradictions at the historical level is very unlike Toy. I thought you were claiming that Boyce and the inerrantists were the heretics with new modern theories, and that Toy was much closer to the traditional orthodox approach of the premodern church. So I was merely trying to show that Toy's view differed sharply from premodern approaches, and that premodern interpreters viewed the Bible as inerrant.

Nice try.

You can only point to one or two ancient fathers who postulated a qualified view of the perfection of the biblical text (be careful not to confuse belief in the divine inspiration of the message of scripture - a belief held by many church fathers but dismissed by inerrantists as inadequate - with that of the perfection of the text itself), but even then the texts they postulated as somewhat perfect were different canons than what you hold to, their notion of divine inspiration held that the text did contain internal inconsistencies, they did not confine the Bible to a literal interpretive method, and they advocated various theological heresies.

The traditional (dominant) orthodox view of biblical intepretation is that of non-literal allegorical interpretation first, and secondly (for a few years in the middle ages) a typological paradigm that advocated a partial-literal interpretive methodology. Not until the post-Reformation era did a overarching literal-interpretive methodology gain popularity.

Inerrancy is a modern view of the biblical text that arose in opposition to 18th/19th century modern science and imposed a modern view of truth as precise, factual, and quantifiable (a definition of truth foreign to the biblical text). It is a heresy in that it neither has support from Christian history (that you would appeal to heretics in an effort to support the view tells to what lengths one has to go to find historical crumbs to support inerrancy), nor is it a position which is advocated from within scripture.

[Greg Wills]

Inerrancy is a modern view of the biblical text that arose in opposition to 18th/19th century modern science and imposed a modern view of truth as precise, factual, and quantifiable (a definition of truth foreign to the biblical text). It is a heresy in that it neither has support from Christian history (that you would appeal to heretics in an effort to support the view tells to what lengths one has to go to find historical crumbs to support inerrancy), nor is it a position which is advocated from within scripture.

You are in error on this point. I again point you to Woodbridge's Biblical Authority volume. I don't know of any liberals who argued that they were returning to precritical theories of the Bible. Toy and other liberals were quite definite that their view of the Bible was--well--modern. Even the Yale school doesn't claim this--they want the benefits of precritical approaches without giving up their modern critical views. I said that precritical views ascribed inerrancy to the Bible. You argued (it appears) that since many premodern interpreters found allegorical levels of meaning that they didn't believe in an inerrant text. I replied that they held that both the allegorical and historical levels were inspired and inerrant (excepting Origen's absurdity texts). They believed that the allegorical meaning was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was without error. As for Origen, I argued only that he believed in allegory and inerrancy. I said that my view differs from his. I hold that he was a heretic, and have a basis for this judgment because I believe that there is a stable inspired meaning to scripture and that that meaning contradicts Origen's teaching at fundamental points. You apparently believe that the text is dynamic, so I'm less certain that you have a consistent basis to prefer your own interpretation to his, much less to convict him of heresy.

[Stephen Fox]

Here is my Heresy List:

Paige Patterson
Paul Pressler
Steve Bounds
AlMohler
Franklin Graham
Karl Rove
Richard Land
Adrian Rogers but not his son David
Asa Carter
George Wallace
Tx Senator John Cornyn

Thornton sometimes gets on that slippery slope, but until I get that free BBQ sandwich he's been promisin I'd be a fool to put him full fledge on my list

And if you want to know the truth of it, I think some of Flick's golden Spurs are heretical; and I think his views on Global Warming are pure Heresy.

I'll think of more heretics later, but right now I felt I had to be clear and name some A listers.

Oh, Ronnie Floyd is a heretic and Bobby Welch is about as borderline as you can get without being a clinical heretic.

[Bruce Gourley]

Inerrancy is a modern view of the biblical text that arose in opposition to 18th/19th century modern science and imposed a modern view of truth as precise, factual, and quantifiable (a definition of truth foreign to the biblical text). It is a heresy in that it neither has support from Christian history (that you would appeal to heretics in an effort to support the view tells to what lengths one has to go to find historical crumbs to support inerrancy), nor is it a position which is advocated from within scripture.

You are in error on this point. I again point you to Woodbridge's Biblical Authority volume. I don't know of any liberals who argued that they were returning to precritical theories of the Bible. Toy and other liberals were quite definite that their view of the Bible was--well--modern. Even the Yale school doesn't claim this--they want the benefits of precritical approaches without giving up their modern critical views. I said that precritical views ascribed inerrancy to the Bible. You argued (it appears) that since many premodern interpreters found allegorical levels of meaning that they didn't believe in an inerrant text. I replied that they held that both the allegorical and historical levels were inspired and inerrant (excepting Origen's absurdity texts). They believed that the allegorical meaning was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was without error. As for Origen, I argued only that he believed in allegory and inerrancy. I said that my view differs from his. I hold that he was a heretic, and have a basis for this judgment because I believe that there is a stable inspired meaning to scripture and that that meaning contradicts Origen's teaching at fundamental points. You apparently believe that the text is dynamic, so I'm less certain that you have a consistent basis to prefer your own interpretation to his, much less to convict him of heresy.

Woodbridge's volume is an inerrantist apologist for inerrancy; he starts from the personal assumption that inerrancy is true, and forces some ancient church fathers to agree with him. His work is convincing only if the reader is already committed to the theory of inerrancy. To say this another way, inerrancy is not supported by early church history - unless you are an inerrantist.

If your best shot at "proving" the early church fathers believed in inerrancy is that some believed a certain meaning of scripture - rather than the text itself - was perfect, then you've put yourself in a peculiar position compared to the inerrantist view that the text itself is perfect, and to settle only for the authority of intent is a liberal position.

My contention about Toy is that his non-literal paradigm in effect is similar to the historic non-literal paradigm. That pre-Reformation theologians arrived at a non-literal rendering of Scripture from a different angle (and different interpretive methodology) than did Toy is not my point; that they arrived at a non-literal juncture is. The roads were different, the overarching conclusion similar: the biblical text transcends a literal paradigm.

[Haruo]

So you can't be both? Sez who?

[Greg Wills]

Those church fathers who had recourse to non-literal interpretation believed that the non-literal meaning was still inerrant. The allegorists were inerrantists still. Toy and other liberals knew this. It is only since the second half of the twentieth century that some persons have claimed that the premodern church rejected the idea of scriptural inerrancy. You can not legitimately shoehorn Coleridge into Origen or the fathers generally. It is an ungainly and implausible enterprise.

A few quotes from the fathers for those with eyes to see:
Clement of Rome: "Look carefully in the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit."
Cyril of Jerusalem: "The Holy Spirit has authored the Scriptures."
Augustine wrote Jerome that regarding the Bible alone "do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. . . . I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error."

Important though history is, however, it can not establish divine truth. Only scripture can do this. I believe that the scriptures do not err because of the testimony of the scriptures, which were produced by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Men err in their utterances. The Spirit does not err in his.

[Bruce Gourley]

Those church fathers who had recourse to non-literal interpretation believed that the non-literal meaning was still inerrant. The allegorists were inerrantists still. Toy and other liberals knew this. It is only since the second half of the twentieth century that some persons have claimed that the premodern church rejected the idea of scriptural inerrancy. You can not legitimately shoehorn Coleridge into Origen or the fathers generally. It is an ungainly and implausible enterprise.

A few quotes from the fathers for those with eyes to see:
Clement of Rome: "Look carefully in the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit."
Cyril of Jerusalem: "The Holy Spirit has authored the Scriptures."
Augustine wrote Jerome that regarding the Bible alone "do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. . . . I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error."

Important though history is, however, it can not establish divine truth. Only scripture can do this. I believe that the scriptures do not err because of the testimony of the scriptures, which were produced by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Men err in their utterances. The Spirit does not err in his.

It's about time you got around to Augustine ... his quote above is the one actual quote from early church history that actually advocates a perfect biblical text. On the other hand, Augustine's perfect text was a different canon that what you hold to.

As to the other quotes, you follow Woodbridge in conflating inspiration with inerrancy. The traditional historical position concerning scripture is that the scripture is inspired, but not textually inerrant.