The Origin of Biblical Literalism

The following is an interesting take on this topic. The idea that it is a PRODUCT of the scientific method is intriguing. The article brings up some interesting points and should be read in full.

Thoughts?

The heresy of literalism as such is a modern, post-scientific phenomenon. Its beginnings can be traced in seventeenth-century Protestant orthodoxy, but it bloomed with twentieth-century Fundamentalism, when the modern world fully embraced the dynamic power of natural science. Scientific method crucially altered the Western mind. After Descartes we became principled skeptics, doubting in order to find out the truth. The notion stole into the religious mind that biblical narratives make proposals that only appear to compete with testable scientific findings (to test our faith) while ultimately, if miraculously, conforming to scientific truth.

Hence the apt, related observation by another Episcopalian theologian, Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, that Fundamentalism is to be regarded as "the bastard child of science and religion". Heretical literalism is the issue of an adulterous mis-match: the bastard-child product of a modern religious imagination formed or perhaps deformed by uncritical embrace of scientific method.

So rose up in history a reactionary Christian mind, panicked and defensive, straining to assert scientific proof (thereby establishing absolute certainty) for its Scripture and the articles of belief it wished to communicate. Thus did literalism teach the "letter" to drive out the "spirit" of the biblical writings, effectively misusing the text in order to promote a corrupted theological agenda. The effect is a rigid constriction of the inspiring Word.

http://people.cas.sc.edu/lewiske/heresy.html

My thoughts?

Reflects your attitudes?

Originally posted by Eladar
My thoughts?

Reflects your attitudes?

Why did you post this?

Just to crap on his post without offering reasons?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The following is an interesting take on this topic. The idea that it is a PRODUCT of the scientific method is intriguing. The article brings up some interesting points and should be read in full.

Thoughts?

[b]The heresy of literalism as such is a modern, post-scientific phenomenon. Its beginnings can be traced in seventeenth-century Protest ...[text shortened]... constriction of the inspiring Word.

http://people.cas.sc.edu/lewiske/heresy.html

[/b]

Yes, I've stated many times in this forum that literalism is unbiblical.

John Calvin encouraged the mind-numbing that goes along with literalism. Blind and mind-dead followers don't ask so many pesky questions.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, I've stated many times in this forum that literalism is unbiblical.

John Calvin encouraged the mind-numbing that goes along with literalism. Blind and mind-dead followers don't ask so many pesky questions.

I think for many Christians it's the whole 'word of God' thing that invokes a rigid/defensive posturing about the literal interpretation of the bible, as though to concede that any part of it was not meant to be taken literally somehow weakens this idea of divine inspiration.

In truth though it is a stringent and literal interpretation of the bible that actually weakens its message, relevance and authority.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, I've stated many times in this forum that literalism is unbiblical.

John Calvin encouraged the mind-numbing that goes along with literalism. Blind and mind-dead followers don't ask so many pesky questions.

What even more disturbing is that those who claim that it is to be taken literally, pick and choose which parts they do and don't take literally, pick and choose passages to ignore and/or alter, impress their own preconceived biases and beliefs onto their "literal" interpretation, etc.

Furthermore, they somehow delude themselves to believe that because they take it "literally", they KNOW the word of God.

The question "Do you take the Bible literally" is something of a trap question.
Perhaps the believing Christian should say that she takes the Bible at face value.

When it is poetry it should be taken as poetry. IE "The Song of Songs"
When we are told that we are listening to a parable, it should be taken as a parable.

When we are informed that history is being written, we should take it as history being written.

If you believe in the sovereignty of God over time you can also take it as history at times with a symbolic or allegorical significance.

It is evident that some things are given to us in "signs".

"The revelation of Jesus Christ ... He made it known by signs ..." (Rev. 1:1)

We're reading prophecy and signs (ie. symbolic pictures) combined. And it may take some skill and spiritual experience to be able to discern when we are reading what.

Christians should beware if falling into the trick question like "Do you take the Bible literally ?" When it is intended to be taken literally, I take it literally.

But this too has some common sense issues. For example, John says he say the stars fall from the sky.

" And I saw when He opened the sixth seal, ... and the whole moon became blood;

And the stars of heaven fell to the earth as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind." (See Rev. 6:12)

John did not see Alpha Centuri, the nearest star (aside from the sun) fall to the earth.
He probably saw what was considered at that time, "stars," coming down to the earth.

I ask myself what would a massive meteor shower look like in the First Century AD ? Probably it would look like the stars of the night sky falling down to the earth.

Is the language unscientific?
No. At least not any more than the modern expressions "I saw the sunrise" or "we saw the sun GO DOWN."

The language is scientifically imprecise according to modern standards.
According to modern standards a star is usually massively larger than the planet earth and light years away. It would most likely not be seen falling to the earth as figs falling from a tree.

This does not mean that the seer John did not see something terribly cataclysmic occurring in the earth's atmosphere.

Originally posted by sonship
The question "Do you take the Bible literally" is something of a trap question.
Perhaps the believing Christian should say that she takes the Bible at face value.

When it is poetry it should be taken as poetry. IE [b]"The Song of Songs"
When we are told that we are listening to a parable, it should be taken as a parable.

When we ar ...[text shortened]... at the seer John did not see something terribly cataclysmic occurring in the earth's atmosphere.[/b]

Do you take the following "at face value"?

John 8
34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 31 ...“If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 35“The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Why did you post this?

Just to crap on his post without offering reasons?

I guess I could be more like you and just post to whine and complain.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you take the following "at face value"?

John 8
34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 31 ...“If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 35“The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Absolutely I take your favorite passage at face value.
It is my personal experience and the experience of many people I know.

Originally posted by sonship
Absolutely I take your favorite passage at face value.
It is my personal experience and the experience of many people I know.

Good to know that you believe that only those who no longer commit sin will have eternal life. I guess I had you all wrong.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Good to know that you believe that only those who no longer commit sin will have eternal life. I guess I had you all wrong.

Cute.

Seriously though, the setting free of Jesus and even the growing of eternal life within a man is a process.

Is this hard to understand ?
I am free indeed of some past sinful things I did.
I am in the process of being freed from things I still need liberation from.
I believe that this process has a conclusion.

Paul said that the process of sanctification was UNTO eternal life.

" .. grace might reign through righteousness UNTO eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. 5:21)

it is not hard to comprehend if you are not working on being skeptical.

ie.

I am saved.
But I am also in the process of being saved.
I will be saved.

Look at the same book in chapter 4. Eternal life is spoken as a fountain or spring gushing up. That is something of a process requiring the passage of time and an accumulating effect.

" ... but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water gushing up into eternal life." (John 4:14b)

Gushing up into more freedom.
Gushing up into more saturation of the Holy Spirit.
Gushing up into more enjoyment of Christ as life.

I have experience being made "free indeed".
I still have it to look forward to more being made "free indeed' in other areas as well.
Jesus Christ came into me as a powerful yet little trickle.
Over the years He is gushing up more and more into eternal life.

In the closing two chapters of the Bible you have a city, the walls of which are composed of precious gems, precious stones of twelve kinds. The symbolism is that transformation has taken place as stones like these are transformed gradually to be precious.

You quoted an article about parables and symbolism. Now is the time for you to appreciate some.

"The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every precious stone: the first foundation was jasper;
the second, saphire;
the third, chalcedony;
the fourth, emerald;
the fifth, sardonyx;
the sixth, sardius;
the seventh, chrysolite;
...
... etc.
the twelfth; amethyst." (Rev. 21:19-20)

This is not to be taken literally but symbolically of transformed human beings. By the process of sanctification, conformation, transformation, resurrection, and glorification saved people have been processed into eternal life throughout their entire beings.

Originally posted by sonship
Cute.

Seriously though, the setting free of Jesus and even the growing of eternal life within a man is a process.

Is this hard to understand ?
I am free indeed of some past sinful things I did.
I am in the process of being freed from things I still need liberation from.
I believe that this process has a conclusion.

Paul said that t ...[text shortened]... glorification saved people have been processed into eternal life throughout their entire beings.

First you claimed to take the text I quoted from John 8 "at face value". Then you went on to demonstrate that you "value" it based on text from Romans and Revelation.

This is how you take the text from John 8 at face value:

"34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
--Those who commit sin are slaves.

" 31 ...If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
--Those who are true disciples of Jesus are freed from the slavery of committing sin and are no longer slaves.

"36So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. "
--Jesus reemphasizes that his true disciples are indeed made free from committing sin.

" 35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
51Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.”
--Those who continue to commit sin will not have eternal life. Those who no longer commit sin will have eternal life.

You keep showing that you don't really care what Jesus actually said or didn't say. Instead you attempt to make it fit a theology based on the words other than what Jesus said in John 8.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Relating John 8 to Revelation and [/b]Romans[/b] is exactly appropriate.

The "house" that Jesus says He abides in forever is the same house or temple that closes the pages of the Bible.

And the house is built with transformed children of God.
And transformed sons of God relates exactly to Romans.

"And those whom He foreknew He also predestinated to be CONFORMED ... to the image of His Son, that He might be the FIrstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:29)

Conformation goes along with being set free.
Transformation goes along with being built into the house.

The Son of God is the cornerstone of the house and abides forever.
The Son of God transforms and conforms the saved into that house via His dynamic savation in His life.

The Bible closes with the completed entity of God's house depicted in symbolic form - saints transformed and conformed to the image of Christ.

John 8 and Romans 8 and Revelatition 21 and 22 go very nicely together to enlighten the matter of salvation from sin, freedom from sin, transformation in the process and final building up of the eternal living house of God.

And I thank God that you have given me an opportunity to clarify this.

Now, you talk about "Jesus while He walked on earth". But I have come up with an expression describing your theology - "ThinkofOne while he walked away from 80% of the New Testament."

Originally posted by Eladar
A. I guess I could be more like you...
B. and just post to whine and complain.

A. No, I don't want you to be like me.

Being more like Jesus would be way better.


B. If Jesus posted here himself, you'd say he was posting to "whine and complain", too.

You're like Rajk, you only post here to attack Christians.