The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit

The thing about Scripture is the fact that its being the Word of God is not provable. There is no criterion that can "prove" it, except for the Word of God itself. This is unavoidably circular reasoning. This is where the doctrine of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit comes in. Weber defines the doctrine in that God speaks and "proves" the Word to us in it, stating that

God is the One at work in the Holy Spirit, not only when the Word is heard but also in the fact that this Word calls forth response from us.

Weber, 241-2.

As the answer to the circular reasoning mentioned above, this understanding of Scripture with the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer is, as Barth states in note 40 on p. 243, "at its weakest point" also "its indestructible strength." One could object that anyone could simply invent the Spirit speaking internally and thus claim that God has specially given his Word. Weber holds off this idea by insisting that,

The testimony of the Spirit is perceived by me as an "I" to the degree that I hear it through the Community or in the Community.

Weber, 247.

I think that's good enough for now.

Theopneusty!

"Theopneusty" is the term that Weber uses for speaking about the understanding of the inspiration of Scripture that he prefers and puts forth here. I've never heard it before, and doubt I ever will again...so don't whip this word out and expect people to know what you're talking about! The important point here is a proper understanding of "inspiration," which "only suggests...the actual working of the Holy Spirit." (Weber, 229)

What he is talking about in this concept is that there is a balance in Scripture, which suggests that the Bible is neither simply human words, nor is it simply the Spirit's authorship. Rather,

its worthiness is to be found in the fact that God's Word in the Bible takes the form of human words which are abbreviated in their reality by absolutely nothing.

Weber, 233.

Thus, we should understand Scripture as the work of the Spirit "in and on man". (Weber, 234) As Scripture is the word of the witnesses to the event of salvation, it is also a work of the Spirit in that it is an instrument in making this salvation known, real, and effective in us. At the same time, and this can only be understood because the Spirit operates at another level than human operation, the word of the witnesses are still human words...their witness still speaks. Weber sums up "theopneusty" by stating that,

Scripture as the compilation of the Word witnessed to is "breathed through by God," that is, it is God's gift and work in the Holy Spirit, because Scripture as the unabbreviated word of man is the Word in which God confronts us unequivocally, for life or for death, because he presents himself to us in it.

Weber, 235. My emphasis.

In proclamation, this Word calls forth decision from us. This "decision is made in light of the Word which is perceived in the words of the biblical witnesses, by virtue of the relationships of these words to the Word happened." (Weber, 235) Thus, in this understanding of Scripture it becomes essential to inquire about the relationship (in the broadest sense of the word) between the Scriptural statement/text/verse/story and the salvation event (Jesus Christ).

That's all for now...I'll try to get some stuff up on the 'Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit' later or tomorrow.

Word and Spirit

It's been a few weeks since I've had time to sit and put together another blog post. There's a lot we've read through in the last few weeks. I'm going to try to take a big sweeping crack at a summary in these next few posts, highlighting what I see as the important details.

He starts the chapter by talking about the root of the problem in the doctrine of Scripture. In short, the problem is that theologians and the Church haven't done a great job historically at balancing the fact that the Spirit actually works in and through Scripture, with the fact that the Spirit also cannot be bottled up in Scripture, personal experience, or the Church. As soon as the Church tries to bottle up the Spirit, be it in an inherently inspired understanding of Scripture(think evangelical-type the-Bible-is-the-infallible-inspired-word-of-God), the ambiguity and individual exclusivity of personal experience (think mysticism), or in the structure, teaching, office, or sacraments of the church (think Catholic understanding of papal infallibility, official teaching on par with Scripture, etc.), it has misunderstood the Spirit all together. This is what is at heart and what is at stake in a proper understanding of Scripture.

Knowledge of God

So far we have looked into the concepts of revelation and the Word of God, and now we move on to knowledge of God. I have to admit that these three concepts, though distinct, are so closely related and interconnected that it's hard to keep them straight and not mash them all together! I think this is so because, as Weber points out, God's activity in which he makes himself known to us is not only the content of our knowledge of God, but is the thing that makes our knowledge possible!

We'll start here. I think that perhaps the most important sentence from this chapter is that,

He [God] not only makes himself into the object of our knowing, but in the same act he makes us into those who know him.

Weber, 196.

God, in the same act whereby he makes himself known to us, he creates and activates within us the ability to know him (but not in a sense of a switch being thrown on). God "opens us up" (p. 196) in order to know him. This opening is something that we could never do on our own, even with the best philosophy, logic, or reason that we could muster. This is what the rather large section on "natural theology" is all about. Weber 'says it all' on page 209,

The human conscience can be the place where the truth is made known. But again we must say that this occurrence cannot be deduced from the most profound analysis of human perception or of human conscience, or be prepared for by the training of the conscience separate from the message. No human activity including the most careful apologetics can change the fact that "the god of this world [!] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Cor. 4:4). Instead, the creative readiness of our conscience and our mind is revealed in the new act of creation, done by the One "...who said, 'Let light shine out of the darkness...'" (2 Cor. 4:6)!

Weber, 209. My emphasis.

In my view, the most important point to be noted about the opposition to natural theology, is that Jesus Christ, the Word, the Gospel, God, needs no preparation in order to open a person up to know God. They do not need to know they're a sinner, they do not need to believe that a god can possibly exist, they do not need to feel the emptiness and hole inside of their heart, they do not even need the inherent (i.e., natural) ability to know God, etc. God doesn't need or require a "point of contact", as God's Word is in and of itself a self-creating point of contact. This is what Weber is on about on p. 214f. So much for natural theology.

So what is 'knowledge of God' like? This is important, though I almost forgot about it in the sea of natural theology and proofs for God's existence (or lack thereof). Knowledge of God is always response to him, it is "concrete, personal, and unspeculative", it is "ultimately always acknowledging", it is "the experience of the I-Thou relationship", it is "nothing other than the knowledge of Jesus Christ...nothing other than faith itself", etc. (quotes from pp. 196-8) It has what Weber calls, "a practical orientation." (p. 198) Knowledge of God is not an end in itself but is that which results in real and practical changes in behavior. He sums it us beautifully on p. 198, saying,

[T]he knowledge of God is not the noetic reception of "something," but the relationship and behavior which involves all of man, which takes place between the individual "I" (or "we") of knowing man and the Thou of a loving and knowing God...God...has established this relationship. The knowledge of God is fellowship with God.

Weber, 198. My emphasis.

So knowledge of God is not primarily information or stuff about God. The sons of Eli knew about God but did not know him. Even the demons believe that God exists, and shutter. Obviously, knowing about God or believing that God exists is not what true, real, active, living knowledge of God is after. This is because knowledge of God, or,

Fellowship with God takes place in grateful and obedient response to the Word given to us, in faith which answers the faithfulness of God...it...is a thankful living "under" God.

Weber, 199.

Well put. As this post quickly becomes as long as the chapter, I will bring it to a close. There's lots that I didn't cover that is important and/or provocative. Thoughts?

The Word of God Proclaimed: Church Proclamation

The Word as event, i.e., Jesus Christ, is witnessed to in and through Scripture as it brings the Word into the present. Likewise,

The Word witnessed to necessitates then the proclaimed Word in each situation because the validity made known in it is acknowledged in the believing Community, and it in turn makes it known, proclaims it to the world.

Weber, 190.

This is obviously thorny and easily misunderstood. Is the word of the preacher also the Word of God? Well, yes and no. It is certainly not necessarily or inherently. It all falls on God, as the words of humans can only be God's Word by God's own work. It is only through God's promised presence in the Community via the Holy Spirit that the Community's proclamation becomes God's Word. As the Head of this Body, Jesus Christ has promised this presence('when two or three are gathered'[Mt. 18:20], 'behold, I am with you always'[Mt. 28:20]) as he is its Living Lord in such a way that he still speaks in it, to it, and through it.

As someone who gets a chance to preach occasionally, this is both comforting and terrifying: comforting because it is God who is responsible for his Word being present; terrifying, because of the awe-some responsibility it is to prepare for and participate in such an event. I go back and forth on whether the comfort leads to terror, or the terror to comfort.

The question that I have is about the difference between "preaching" and "proclamation". I've assumed that preaching was one specific aspect of the Church's greater and encompassing proclamation (for instance, the Church proclaims with its actions, its other words, its outward moving presence, etc.). Weber seems to use "preaching" and "proclamation" somewhat interchangeably (I'm not fine-tooth-combing this). Understanding that "preaching" is certainly a vehicle and form of God's Word, to what extent is the Church's greater and encompassing proclamation also God's Word?

Also, the word 'necessitates' bothers me. I don't think that God and/or Christ 'necessitates' anything, in the sense that God doesn't 'need' anything to be God. Weber's logic possibly seems to go somewhere down that route: God/the Word/Jesus Christ needs Scripture which needs proclamation. I don't think he means 'necessitates' in that fashion though. I think he means "causes to occur". Thoughts?

Note: 'Community' is another term for 'Church'. It was somewhat (and still is) en vogue because it put less focus on the building/institution/etc. and more on the people/family of God. I like the interchangeability of them because they both emphasize necessary aspects(people and institution) of the Body of Christ.

The Word of God Witnessed To: Scripture

The second form is the Word witnessed to, i.e., Scripture. Because the Word of God was incarnate in history, it is given to us now through the Word of its witnesses. Weber states that,

The witness which Holy Scripture contains is essentially the proclamation of what has happened once and for all so that it will be accepted and believed as the event which is once and for all.

Weber, 186.

Here, Weber is stating that the Scriptures point to the mighty acts that God has accomplished for all people and all time, and as such, for us today. Thus, he can say that the Word is truly witnessed to in Scripture because of the validity that these acts hold for the present (and the future) as well as the past.

In some ways it is the total opposite of fairy tales, novels, or even history. That sort of literature is meant to take you from the present/real world and into their world, while Scripture is meant to bring its world to you in such a way that you may respond to the good news it witnesses.

The Word of God as Event: Jesus Christ

Under the section of 'the Word as event', Weber speaks about the way in which Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh and dwells among us (Jn. 1:14). That the Word can and would dwell among us is pointed towards in the Old Testament, so that

the One in whom the Word of God is so present, as the Word of God in person, in a specific, historical man, God's elect, that in him it is no longer an alien Word, like that of the prophets, which is obediently heard, passed on, and testified to. Here, he comes to us in his total authenticity so that this Man no longer just receives and proclaims, but is the Word of God.

Weber, 181. My emphasis.

This form of the Word is the original form from which the others find their foundation. Thus, Jesus Christ is the source of their meaning and content. This is only verifiable and certain by God's own verification and authority. In this section, Weber mentions three ways that the Church has historically tried to otherwise verify the Word: by making the Church itself authoritative, by making the Bible infallible, and through some sort of historical authenticity underlying Scripture. Each of these ultimately fail because they put themselves (the Church, the Bible, or historicity) in the place of God, as God is the only true authority of the Word.

If the quote from my last post is true and read through this post, it is entirely comforting, encouraging, and challenging the Jesus Christ is the decision made about me that demands of me a decision.

Note: Weber, along with many other recent theologians, is fond of using "I and Thou" terminology. This is terminology which was made prevalent in the 1920s by Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher. In short, it is used to denote genuine and authentic relations between two entities. It is in contrast to "I and It" relations, where the "It" refers to objects that we either use or experience, but do not enter into genuine relationship with. In reference to the Word to the Thou, he means that when the human is addressed by the Word, the human's humanity and creatureliness is upheld and respected, and visa-versa. The Wikipedia entry on I-Thou is helpful (just like all Wikipedia entries).

The Threefold Form of the Word of God

So thus far we have seen that God reveals himself to us. The "how" of this, is that he reveals himself in and through his "Word". Because God actually reveals himself in a way that is real, personal, concrete, happens in time and history, etc., this revelation must have some 'form'. This 'form' is the Word.

It is important at this point to mention that the Word is not some abstract substance of truth or knowledge that is floating around in the atmosphere for us to be able to comprehend rationally. That is (something like) the way the ancient Greeks developed the concept (and how some Christians thought and/or think of it). The Word is an address from God to the human. It is a

divine decision made about me which demands of me a decision.

Weber, 180

Weber's section on the Word is divided into three parts, following Karl Barth's understanding of the "threefold form of the Word of God." While there is one Word, the Word is found in three forms: the Word as event (Jesus Christ), the Word witnessed to (Scripture), and the Word proclaimed (the Church's proclamation).