Critiquing: #007 — Bible infallibility, Sola Scriptura and slavery
February 12, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier
Bible Trustworthiness — Scriptural Authority — Hermeneutics — Slavery Debate — Reformation Impact
Episode Assessment:
| Metric | ——— | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of Accuracy | B+ | The content is generally accurate, with well-supported historical and theological claims, though some interpretations are debated. |
| Degree of Coherence | A- | The arguments are logically structured and connect theological principles with historical contexts effectively. |
| Absence of Fallacies | B | The podcast avoids major logical fallacies, but there are minor inconsistencies in the application of hermeneutic principles. |
| Degree of Evidence | B+ | Substantial references to historical texts and theological scholarship, but some claims rely heavily on interpretive frameworks. |
| Degree of Testability | C+ | Many claims are theological and interpretive, making empirical testing challenging. |
| Rational Confidence | B | Arguments are well-supported within their theological framework, though confidence is moderated by the interpretive nature of the content. |
Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:
1. Degree of Testability
The claims presented in the podcast are primarily theological and interpretive, making empirical testing challenging. NT Wright discusses the nature of biblical infallibility and the concept of sola scriptura, but these are inherently difficult to verify through empirical means. For example, the assertion that “the Bible is the book God wanted us to have” relies on theological interpretations rather than empirical data.
“The important thing is to live within the narrative and see what it does.”
2. Rational Confidence
While the podcast provides well-supported arguments within a theological framework, the confidence in these arguments is moderated by their interpretive nature. Wright’s discussion on the trajectory hermeneutic and the treatment of slavery reflects deep theological beliefs, yet these interpretations are not universally accepted, affecting the overall confidence in the claims made.
“The abolitionist movements in the 18th and 19th century were applying radically to society things that are embedded in Scripture.”
The claim above does not take into account the Scriptural commandment to kill Amalekite infants (1 Samuel 15:3).
Formulations of Major Arguments
Argument #1: The Trustworthiness of the Bible
- Premise 1: The Bible is the book God wanted humanity to have.
- Premise 2: The Bible’s narratives are meant to be lived and understood within their cultural and historical context.
- Premise 3: The trustworthiness of the Bible is not about empirical accuracy but about its ability to guide and shape the lives of believers.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is trustworthy as a source of divine guidance, even if not all parts are empirically verifiable.
Counter-Argument: While the idea that the Bible is trustworthy as divine guidance is appealing to believers, it does not address the need for empirical evidence in historical claims. The lack of empirical verification for certain biblical events undermines the argument for the Bible’s universal trustworthiness. Moreover, relying on subjective interpretation to determine trustworthiness can lead to inconsistent and potentially biased understandings of scripture.
Argument #2: The Principle of Sola Scriptura
- Premise 1: The Reformers emphasized scripture alone (sola scriptura) as the foundation for Christian belief and practice.
- Premise 2: This principle was a response to perceived corruptions and excesses in church tradition.
- Premise 3: Sola scriptura asserts that the Bible contains all necessary knowledge for salvation and living a Christian life.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Christians should prioritize scripture over church tradition in matters of faith and practice.
Counter-Argument: The principle of sola scriptura assumes that all essential truths are clearly and comprehensively presented in the Bible, which is not universally accepted. Additionally, the historical and cultural contexts in which the Bible was written are not always considered, leading to potential misinterpretations. Church tradition, when properly understood, can provide valuable insights and correctives that sola scriptura alone may lack.
Argument #3: The Trajectory Hermeneutic and Slavery
- Premise 1: The Bible contains passages that reflect the cultural and social norms of its time, including those on slavery.
- Premise 2: The trajectory hermeneutic suggests that these passages should be understood as starting points for ethical progress rather than final ethical standards.
- Premise 3: Applying the trajectory hermeneutic can lead to the abolition of slavery and other social reforms.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible’s treatment of slavery can be seen as part of a progressive revelation that leads to greater social justice.
Counter-Argument: The trajectory hermeneutic relies heavily on subjective interpretation, which can lead to inconsistent applications. Critics argue that this approach risks imposing modern values onto ancient texts, potentially distorting their original meaning. Additionally, not all biblical scholars agree with the trajectory hermeneutic, and some see it as undermining the authority of scripture by suggesting it needs to be ‘improved’ over time.
◉ Addressing Argument #1:
The Hermeneutical Blindness in Wright’s Argument on Biblical Reliability and Slavery
Introduction
NT Wright claims that the abolitionist movements of the 18th and 19th centuries were applying principles embedded in Scripture to radically transform society. This assertion assumes the Bible’s reliability and its inherent opposition to slavery. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that the very same Scriptures allowed slavery and make no clear commandment to abolish it. This essay examines the selective hermeneutical blindness in Wright’s argument, highlighting the inconsistencies and interpretive challenges in using the Bible as a basis for abolitionism.
The Bible’s Stance on Slavery
The Bible contains numerous passages that address slavery, often in ways that accept and regulate the practice rather than condemn it. In the Old Testament, books such as Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy include laws governing the treatment of slaves. These laws do not challenge the institution of slavery but rather provide guidelines for its operation. Similarly, in the New Testament, passages in Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Timothy instruct slaves to obey their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well, but do not call for the abolition of slavery.
The Absence of a Clear Commandment to Abolish Slavery
The Bible lacks a clear, unequivocal commandment to abolish slavery. While some passages, such as those advocating for the humane treatment of slaves, might be interpreted as progressive for their time, they fall short of demanding the end of the practice. For instance, Paul’s letter to Philemon, often cited as an abolitionist text, encourages Philemon to treat his runaway slave Onesimus as a brother in Christ but stops short of advocating for Onesimus’s freedom.
Selective Hermeneutical Blindness
Wright’s argument that abolitionist principles are embedded in Scripture demonstrates selective hermeneutical blindness. This term refers to the tendency to interpret texts in a way that supports one’s pre-existing beliefs while ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence. In this case, Wright emphasizes the aspects of the Bible that align with abolitionist values while overlooking or rationalizing the passages that condone slavery. This selective reading fails to acknowledge the Bible’s complex and often contradictory messages about slavery.
The Role of Cultural and Historical Context
Understanding the Bible’s stance on slavery requires considering its cultural and historical context. The biblical texts were written in societies where slavery was a widespread and accepted institution. The laws and instructions regarding slavery were intended to regulate and mitigate the harshest aspects of the practice within that context, rather than to challenge its existence. The abolitionist movements, emerging in a different cultural and historical context, drew on broader principles of justice and human dignity that were not explicitly articulated in the biblical texts.
The Influence of Broader Ethical Principles
The success of the abolitionist movements was driven by a combination of factors, including Enlightenment ideals, economic changes, and evolving social norms. While some abolitionists were motivated by their Christian faith, they often interpreted Scripture through the lens of these broader ethical principles. This approach allowed them to advocate for the end of slavery, even when the biblical texts did not provide a clear mandate for abolition. Wright’s argument fails to adequately account for the influence of these broader principles and the ways in which they shaped abolitionist interpretations of Scripture.
Conclusion
NT Wright’s claim that the abolitionist movements applied principles embedded in Scripture to transform society reveals a hermeneutical blindness. By focusing on the aspects of the Bible that support abolitionist values while ignoring its acceptance of slavery, Wright’s argument overlooks the complexity and contradictions within the biblical texts. Understanding the role of cultural and historical context, as well as the influence of broader ethical principles, is essential for a more nuanced and accurate interpretation of the Bible’s stance on slavery. This analysis underscores the need for critical and balanced hermeneutics in theological discussions.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment