Biblicism.pdf

Stephen Kemp TMM2011 Daniel McGinnis St Barnabus Teaching Centre Evaluate Christian Biblicism And The Problem Of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism Word Count: 2414 Introduction This essay will look at Biblicism and Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism (PIP) as defined by Smith and why he believes the two cannot co-exist. It will look at the ways in which this has been dealt with by Smith and will assess whether one of his proposed solutions, Critical Realism (CR), is a suitable tool. It will also consider whether Wright and McGrath’s use of CR in their work is a way forward. Biblicism and Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism -What is it? Smith1 says that Biblicism cannot formally be defined, but has a range of beliefs and positions that are interconnected. He suggests that Biblicists will subscribe to one or more of nine assumptions (and a tenth that he believes leads from it) about the Bible: Divine writing; Total Representation; Complete Coverage; Democratic Perspicuity; Common-sense Hermeneutics; Solo Scriptura; Internal harmony; Universal Applicability and Inductive Method. The tenth is the Handbook Model (see Appendix 1 for more detail). Pervasive Interpretative Pluralism (PIP) is Smith’s term for the fact that the church has produced a “pluralism of interpretations”2 from the Bible, because in his words “the Bible, after their [evangelicals] very best efforts to understand it, says and teaches very different things (emphasis mine) about most significant topics”3 1 Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible-Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading Of Scripture (Brazos Press, MI: Grand Rapids, 2012), p.4-5. 2 Smith, The Bible made impossible, p. 17. 3 Smith, The Bible Made Impossible p. x, xi. How is it problematic? Smith’s argument follows the logic that: a) if Biblicism is true, then we should be able to extract from it the right theology and the right way to live; b) Biblicists have extracted a plethora of views on these issues, therefore c) the Biblicist view of the Bible is flawed and needs revising. In Smith’s words “on important matters the Bible apparently is not clear, consistent, and univocal enough to enable best-intentioned, most highly skilled, believing readers to come to agreement on what it teaches”4 This, he believes has created disunity and sects within the church. He admits this is not a new problem, but is being ignored by evangelical Christians today, who strongly hold biblicist views. Smith’s critics say that he is attacking a straw man or caricature that Biblicists (as he describes them), if existing, are at the extremes of Biblicism. DeYoung states that Smith “attacks ideas that none of the mainstream institutions, documents or persons he criticizes holds”5 Smith then chooses several key beliefs, such as Atonement and Justification and suggests that Biblicists even disagree over whether the Penal Substitutionary theory is the dominant theory, or whether healing, cleansing or other metaphors show a “kaleidoscope” of views.6 This multivocality of the Bible stems, Smith believes, from the paradigms that people use to 4 Smith, The Bible made impossible, p. 25. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/christian-smith-makes-the-bible-impossible/ accessed 6th November 2018. 6 Smith, The Bible made impossible, p. 34. 5 read the Bible (for example, Salvation History, Covenant, Kingdom). These paradigms cannot interpret all the texts, so these uninterpreted texts are either ignored by Biblicists or reinterpreted to fit the paradigm.7 He uses the analogy that the texts are like pieces of a jigsaw, with paradigms representing pictures the pieces can make. In every paradigm, each picture has a piece or two missing, or left over. No paradigm can use all the pieces to make one picture, unless some pieces are “made” to fit. Frame thinks that Smith’s metaphors are “gratuitous” and suggests that Evangelical theology understands that the “pieces must be arranged in many patterns simultaneously and applied to a vast number of human life contexts.”8 Frame also accuses Smith of trivialising the process (of Bible interpretation) as Frame describes this task as “far more complicated, communal and prayerful”8 than Smith realises. Smith believes that this multivocality is shown by multivalency of scripture, whereby multiple meanings can be drawn from one passage. He uses the example of the Woman at the Well in Jn. 4:1-42, to show that at least 15 different interpretations can be drawn from it (no pun intended).9 Gundry suggests that rather than focus on multivocality, it would be better to see that diverse passages are due to different literary genres and messages focussed on certain situations. In a comparable post-Biblical situation, these passages can speak with “full, unvarnished authority.”10 Smith’s argument is not as strong here, if he had said that 15 different theologies are ascribed to this (or any other) passage by different Biblicists, he would have a strong point. 7 Smith, The Bible made impossible, p. 44-45. https://journal.rts.edu/article/is-biblicism-impossible-a-review-article/ Accessed 6th November 2018 9 Smith p. 49-50. 10 https://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2011/sepoct/smithreens.html?paging=off Accessed 6th November 2018 8 As others have noticed, a lot of these overlap and are applications of principles in the text, such as overcoming cultural barriers.5,8,10 Texts having more than one application is not as big a problem as Smith presents because texts can include or produce more than one theological idea; it is rare that one text can give two dichotomous theologies. Dealing with Biblicism and Pervasive Interpretative Pluralism In the past, the way to deal with PIP was for the Magisterium to decide what was orthodoxy and what was heresy. Recently these terms have fallen out of favour and the focus is on a stronger hermeneutic or the synthesis of different hermeneutics.11 Wright points out that four diverse hermeneutics for constructing theology from the Bible find a place in St. Paul’s hermeneutics.12 Smith suggests the solution to the problem of Biblicism is a, “stronger hermeneutical guide that can govern the proper interpretation of the multivocal, polysemous, multivalent texts of scripture toward the shared reading of a more coherent authoritative biblical message”13 Smith then proposes several solutions (for a summary of these, see Appendix 2), firstly applying a Christocentric hermeneutic,14 secondly, differentiating between Dogma, Doctrine and opinion15 and thirdly, using CR and the locutionary aspect of language.16 Smith’s critics 11 Stanley E. Porter, and Beth M Stovell, Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views (Downers Grove, U.S.: Inter-Varsity Press, 2012), pp. 201-210. 12 Daniel M. Doriani, Walter C. Kaiser, and Mark L. Strauss, Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology (Grand Rapids, U.S.: Zondervan, 2009), p. 326. 13 Smith, The Bible made impossible, p. 95. 14 Ibid., p. 97. 15 Ibid., p. 134-5. 16 Ibid., p. 152. accuse him of disparaging the hermeneutics that have led to Biblicism and then suggesting one that Biblicists are using.17 DeYoung meets Smiths ten tenets of Biblicism, with ten solutions to PIP (see Appendix 3). I believe Smith would see these as a dilution of the Biblicist he has portrayed in his book whereas DeYoung would see this as a more true representation of the reality of Biblicism and PIP. It seems that neither side in this argument is willing to agree on the truth of the situation, nor willing to allow different interpretations of what constitutes a Biblicist (or to see the irony of their position). In order to counter Biblicism and PIP, I believe Smith to be saying his Christocentric hermeneutic will produce a small amount of important definitive truth. The rest of the truth should be divided in three sets of diminishing importance (Dogma, Doctrine and Opinion) and if anyone disagrees on these then CR will iron out any disagreements. In the next sections, we will look at the theory of CR, how it is used by theologians. Critical Realism CR is a philosophy of Ontology (study of the nature of being) whose main proponent was Roy Bhasker. It is a philosophy of the Science and Social sciences, stating that we cannot reduce statements about the world to our knowledge of the world. If we attempt to do this, we will incur the epistemic fallacy (when the knowledge of a thing and the thing itself are considered of having the same identity or correspondence). The world, according to CR is structured (having ontological depth); differentiated (becoming different through process) and changing (not static), not unstructured, undifferentiated and unchanging. It came out of 17 https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/christian-smith-makes-the-bible-impossible/ accessed 6th November 2018. American philosophy in the early part of the 20th century and can be described as “that perceiving is a complex operation which uses sensory appearances as a guide but is concerned with what it regards as things.”18 In other words, we need to be critical (discuss or interact with) of what we perceive as “real”, rejecting naïve realism, empiricism and idealism. McGrath19 helpfully describes it as: our observable world is not all there is; is not reliant on our ability to see or perceive it and there are ‘generative mechanisms’ yet to be discovered. Bhasker’s CR is most effectively applied in the Social sciences where Corson states that: “Bhaskar's critical realism insists that we will only be able to understand and change the social world if we identify the structures at work (i.e. the reality of the mechanisms themselves) that generate those special interests”20 He says that CR can remove the opposition between such things as facts and values; structure and agency, and theory and practice.21 In a discussion forum22 on whether Bhaskar’s CR contains a theory of truth, Radford says that it is epistemologically relative, i.e. it depends on the context whether something is true or not. Johnson expands and explains CR through the idea of multiple lenses, which although each lens shows a reality, the total reality is not fully understood. Johnson quotes 18 Roy Wood Sellars , A Statement of Critical Realism, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, Vol. 1, No. 3 (15 AVRIL 1939), p. 473 19 Alister E. McGrath, The Science of God (Cromwell Press, London, 2004), p. 145. 20 David Corson, Bhaskar's Critical Realism and Educational Knowledge, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1991), p. 231. 21 Ibid., p. 235. 22 https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_Critical_Realism_contain_a_theory_of_truth2 Accessed 20th November 2018. Bhaskar23 who calls this stratification of realities “ontological depth” suggesting that truth is too complex for us. Critical Realism and Theology N.T. Wright recognises the above aspects of CR adding that there is no such thing as a neutral, objective or detached observer.24 He then proposes to use CR in placing knowledge within a worldview or “stories” suggesting that knowledge will be shown when people find things that fit that worldview. McGrath applies CR from a different perspective. He states that CR is a “style of realism which is sensitive to the historical situated and personally involved character of theological knowledge, while resolutely declining to let go of the ideals of truth, objectivity and rationality”19 Radford22 is critical of theologians who take the position as described. He says their use of CR would lead to a limit of how much it can be used to bring about religious belief that is objective and rational. I believe that McGrath is not looking to produce an objective, rational or systematic theology of his own using CR, but a scientific theology, where he seeks to produce a “coherent vision of reality.”25 McGrath26 then suggests eight stratifications (Bhaskar’s ontological depth) of reality in which revelation resides: Texts (supremely Scripture); Patterns of worship; Ideas (set out in Creeds); Communities; Institutional Structures; Images; Words and Religious Experience. Having set out briefly 23 Bhaskar Roy, Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation (London, Verso, 1986) p. 92. N.T. Wright, The New Testament and The People of God (SPCK, Norfolk, 1992) p. 36. 25 Alister E. McGrath, The Science of God (Cromwell Press, London, 2004), p. 248. 26 McGrath, The Science of God, p. 150. 24 what CR is and how it is used by two eminent theologians, a few issues will be discussed along with some thoughts, questions and further work. Issues with Critical Realism and Theology with Proposed Solutions I believe McGrath is right to choose these 8 stratifications of the Christian faith to investigate for producing a Christian reality, but for a Biblical theology or hermeneutic, I suggest that these stratifications would be too wide a range for all theologians to agree to. It may produce the all-encompassing theology that it promises, but theologians from all areas would need to agree that this anti-reductionist method is the best way forward and on the stratifications to be investigated. Critiques from the CR community that objective and rational truth cannot be produced from it will convince the Biblicists that Smith speaks of. Wrights use of the story in knowledge though a CR lens for the people of God is a step in another direction. Does this mean that we take our reality as that which exists and then engage with the Bible as it meets with our community in dialogue? Or should we take the structures (ontological depth) of this world and see how they are affected by sinful people? Smith gives little detail on how he would use CR to resolve PIP. Methodology in CR is in it’s early stages of development, one methodology27 (See Appendix 4) of CR is from a sociological position. I have tentatively suggested that hermeneutics (rather than the theology it produces) and the institutions that promote Biblicism be placed alongside each other in this methodology. This is because institutions are more easily studied from a sociological point of view and Smith sees them as the main source of Biblicism. It would be 27 Corina Raduescu, Iris Vessey, Methodology in Critical Realist Research: The Mediating Role of Domain Specific Theory, Conference Paper, Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2009, San Francisco, California, USA, August 6-9, 2009 beyond my ability to propose a method of hermeneutics alone. Here is an outline of how this methodology might be applied: 1. Description: Identify the dilemma to be studied-Biblicism and PIP are incompatible 2. Analytical resolution: Identify important aspects- e.g. Theories of interpretation (hermeneutics) and the Institutions that hold them 3. Redescription: Redescribe the aspects based on structures and relations, identify theoretical interpretations (compare and integrate where possible)- Structures of the Institutions, compare and integrate different hermeneutics 4. Retroduction: How did aspects arise? What causal mechanisms are there? How did different institutions/hermeneutics arise? How are they linked? 5. Comparison: Compare the theories for their explaining power-Analysis of hermeneutics/Institutions for ability to explain reality 6. Concretisation and Conceptualisation: Which mechanisms interact with other mechanisms at different levels under specific conditions? What is the meaning behind the hermeneutical mechanisms/Institutions and the theology they produce? If used in this way, it would help us see the mechanisms behind the theology, to the hermeneutics (or paradigms) that produce it and the Institutions that promote them. This would either promote a change in the institutional structure that produces it, or a synthesis of the hermeneutics which best portray reality. This sounds very similar to the way that Smith sets out his thesis in his book, i.e. Biblicism is linked to institutions, PIP exists, the two are not compatible, CR can analyse those institutions to show that either Biblicism or the structures that produce it need changing. Conclusion Smith has some real problems with Biblicism and the Pervasive Interpretative Pluralism that exists. His objectors don’t deny that PIP or Biblicists (in whatever form) exist, but that he has exaggerated the problem. His suggested use of the CR tool at this present time is quite pertinent when truth is seen to be less objective. I would caution the thought that CR is the answer to our current problem, as it may become a double edged sword. On one side, it can show a way forward for theology by producing a synergistic hermeneutic to solve insoluble problems. On the other side, our understanding of the “truth” of the Bible will need some redefining. In turning to CR to solve our problem may show that our beliefs are but different views through different lenses (epistemologically relative), or that our Biblicism is tied to the social structures (Institutions) that produce them. Critical Realism in theology is in it’s infancy and it would be advantageous to see McGrath propose a detailed methodology for scientific theology and the fruits of this. Finally, I must confess that PIP is very alluring, even as I was writing this essay, I was tempted to promote a different view or “discover” a different (subjective?) truth that I could call my own, even if the objective truth was already known to me. Is it our pride which has caused so many of these different views and what is needed is humility, not a newer, stronger or synergised hermeneutic? Bibliography Corson David, Bhaskar's Critical Realism and Educational Knowledge, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1991), pp. 223-241. Doriani, Daniel M., Kaiser Walter C., and Strauss Mark L., Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology (Grand Rapids, U.S.: Zondervan, 2009). McGrath Alister E., The Science of God (Cromwell Press, London, 2004) Porter, Stanley E., and Stovell Beth M., Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views (Downers Grove, U.S.: Inter-Varsity Press, 2012) Raduescu Corina, Vessey Iris, Methodology in Critical Realist Research: The Mediating Role of Domain Specific Theory, Conference Paper, Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2009, San Francisco, California, USA, August 6-9, 2009 Sellars, Roy Wood, A Statement of Critical Realism, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, Vol. 1, No. 3 (15 AVRIL 1939), pp. 472-498. Smith Christian, The Bible Made Impossible-Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading Of Scripture (Brazos Press, MI: Grand Rapids, 2012) Wright N.T., The New Testament and The People of God (SPCK, Norfolk, 1992) Appendix 1: Christian Smith’s Ten Biblicist’s assumption or beliefs:1 1. Divine writing. The Bible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is identical with God’s very own words written inerrantly in human language 2. Total Representation: The Bible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity, both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusive mode of God’s true communication. 3. Complete coverage: The divine will about all the issues relevant to Christian belief and life are contained in the Bible. 4. Democratic Perspicuity: Any reasonable intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text. 5. Common-sense Hermeneutics: The best way to understand biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit, plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value, which may or may not involve taking account their literary, cultural and historical contexts. 6. Solo Scriptura: The significance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible from scratch. 7. Internal Harmony: All related passages of the Bible an any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into single, unified, internally consistent bodies of instruction about right and wrong beliefs and behaviours. 8. Universal Applicability: What the biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all Christians at every time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching. 9. Inductive Method: All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down with the Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical” truths that it teaches. The prior nine assumptions and beliefs generate a tenth viewpoint that-although often not stated in explications of biblicist principles and beliefs by its advocates-also commonly characterises the general biblicist outlook, particularly as it is received and practised in popular circles: 10. Handbook Model: The Bible teaches doctrine and morals with every affirmation that it makes, so that together those affirmations comprise something like a handbook or textbook for Christian belief and living, a compendium of divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects-including science, economics, health, politics and romance. Appendix 2: Smith’s Proposals to counter Biblicism Christological Hermeneutic This hermeneutic should emphasize the centrality of God in Jesus Christ to make sense of Scripture. Smith uses the Emmaus Road (Lk. 24: 13-35) pericope to show that when the scriptures were explained to the two disciples, it was concerning himself (v. 27).28 This should not mean that we should try to find Christ in every word of the Bible, but understood in the light of Jesus Christ and God’s reconciling work. The internal unity of the Bible centres of the living Christ. In essence our views should be “defined completely in terms of thinking about them in view of the larger facts of Jesus Christ and the gospel-not primarily by gathering and arranging pieces of scriptural texts that seem to be relevant to such topics in order to pinpoint the biblical view on them”29 Dogma, Doctrine and Opinion The real matter of Scripture is clear, that God in Christ came to earth, died and rose again for us to have new life.30 On other matters the Bible is not so clear. This should lead us to categorise the absolutely clear views as dogma, central important issues as doctrine and lesser issues as opinion. In terms of our distinctive beliefs we should, “put those distinctives into proper theological and pastoral perspective, to not make any of them more theologically significant than they are, and to do everything possible to prevent them from serving as unnecessary obstacles to peace and unity.”31 Critical Realism and other tools Critical realism brings a number of metatheoretical understandings about reality and knowledge. This criteria will sort through different interpretations of evidence to pursue truth. Alongside this, Smith proposes a study of listening to how other cultures read and live out the Bible, as well as how the Bible has been interpreted in the past.32 Smith also suggest that we need a better understanding of locutionary (making a meaningful utterance), illocutionary (an action from a locutionary act: command, warning, promise etc) and perlocutionary acts (the effect of the action on the recipient: motivating, impressing etc) in the Bible. This will help us understand what God is communicating to us in the Bible and the effect it had on the people at the time of hearing. 28 Smith, The Bible made impossible, p. 99. Ibid., p.111. 30 Ibid., p. 132. 31 Ibid., p. 138. 32 Ibid., p. 155. 29 Appendix 3: Making Sense of PIP This is an extract from DeYoung’s solution to PIP33 1.We need a proper understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible does not tell us everything we want to know about everything. It does not give explicit instructions for many of life’s dilemmas. Wisdom is required. But we do believe, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (WCF 1.6). 2. We need a proper understanding of the clarity of Scripture. “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (WCF 1.7). 3. We need a proper understanding of Sola Scriptura. We do not interpret Scripture apart from creeds, confessions, and the traditions of the church. Indeed, we ought to put the burden of proof on any who would overturn the historic consensus of the church. But in the end everything—tradition and historical formulations included—must be tested against the final authority of the Bible. 4. We must maintain some sense of proportion with our beliefs. Some doctrines are clearer than others. Some are more central than others. Keep your dogmas and your dogmatism in order. 5. Christians come to different conclusions on Scripture for several reasons. As Carson points out in Exegetical Fallacies, sometimes Christians disagree on interpretations because we have not looked hard enough at an issue or a text; sometimes we disagree because we are too bound to our own tradition or too eager to please our friends (dead or alive); sometimes Christians disagree because the effects of sin distort our interpretive abilities. And sometimes Christians disagree because one is wrong and the other is right. Hopefully I’m humble enough to remain open to correction and learning new things. But I also hope to be forthright enough to say, yes, I do think Mormons, Arminians, Egalitarians, and Dispensationalists are wrong—not equally wrong by any means, but on certain matters wrong nonetheless. 6. We should recognize that PIP is a problem for everyone everywhere. Are there not multiple interpretations on Chaucer, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 1919 Black Sox, Christology, and the nature of the gospel? Perhaps authoritative Church Tradition can solve the last two problems (and those like it). But moving to a Magisterium only pushes the problem back another level. PIP exists for papal encyclicals as much as it does for evangelical theology. Wherever there are humans there will be disagreements about what 33 https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/those-tricksy-biblicists/ things mean. That should make us cautious about concluding from PIP that something is necessarily wrong with the Bible or evangelical notions of its authority. 7. We should realize that PIP is not a new phenomenon. PIP has always existed in the history of Christian interpretation. But the church fathers, just to cite one example, still believed the Bible was harmonious and believers should and could affirm the right doctrines in all areas of faith and practice. Augustine’s “On Christian Doctrine” is all about how to interpret the Scripture correctly. While I may not agree with every point of his method, he certainly believed applying the right methods would get you to the right truth (see especially NPNF 2.539; 2.556). “What difficulty is it for me when these words can be interpreted in various ways,” Leithart quotes Augustine as saying, “provided only that the interpretations are true?. . .In Bible study, all of us are trying to find and grasp the meaning of the author we are reading, and when we believe him to be revealing truth, we do not dare to think he said anything which we either know or think to be incorrect.” PIP was no deal-breaker for Augustine. It did not undermine his confidence in the understandability and internal consistency of Scripture. Likewise, Justin Martyr was “entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another” (ANF 1.230) and Origen affirmed that “Scripture is the one perfect and harmonized instrument of God, from which different sounds give forth one saving voice to those who are willing to learn” (ANF 9.413). The Fathers believed the Bible was internally consistent and that they had understood it correctly while their opponents misunderstood it. Evangelicals say the same. 8. Despite the widespread existence of PIP, at some point everyone wants to say that Scripture says something clearly, whether others disagree or not. Smith concludes that Ron Sider’s book is spot-on and that Nicene Christology is true and non-negotiable. Many people—sincere intelligent people—disagree. There are lots of interpretations out there about the person of Christ. So how do we determine which is correct? If we conclude that a certain interpretation is right about the person of Christ (or Ron Sider’s claims for that matter) and that others are wrong, is that biblicism? In the end, no one thinks PIP completely undermines the clarity, consistency, and relevance of Scripture. 9. We must distinguish between meaning and significance. Smith lists seventeen different “readings” he’s heard or seen on John’s story about the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42). But almost none of these “readings” are mutually exclusive. Most of them either fairly exegete the text or fairly seek to express the significance of the text for contemporary believers. Just because different sermons come up with different homiletical points does not mean PIP has eviscerated an evangelical approach to Scripture. 10. We should be a biblicist in the same way Jesus was. He believed that the entire Old Testament came from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4). He believed that for Scripture to say something was the same as God speaking (Matt. 19:4-5). He believed the inspiration of Scripture went down to the individual words (John 10:30). He believed that Scripture cannot fail, cannot be wrong, and by implication cannot ultimately contradict itself (John 10:35). He believed that the apostolic teaching–what is now preserved in the words of the New Testament–would be divinely inspired by the Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-15). He settled disputes on all kinds of matters, from Christological to ethical to political, by appealing to Scripture, often “prooftexting” from a single verse (see Matt. 41-10; 19:1-7; 22:32). He believed there were correct interpretations to Scripture that others should recognize even in the midst of interpretive pluralism (Matt. 5:21-48; 22:29). Appendix 4 Critical Realism Methodology27