;)
Faith, Scripture, and Selective Epistemological Rationalism
Posted by Rob Ayers in Bible & Theology
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible…without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” – Hebrews 11:1-3;6 ESV
The argument in these post-modern days seems to center around “truth” and if it can be “absolute, objective, innate, a priori” or “subjective, relative, a posteriori.” Post-moderns and most of all our culture would state the latter – all truth is subjective and relative. Thus we have people today who would claim that Bin Laden is a villain or some who would claim that he is a hero dependent upon their own subjective view(although he still murdered a lot of innocent victims and is proud of it). There are students in my Philosophy classroom who will not condemn Hitler for he was merely doing what he and his culture understood as “truth” so therefore who are we to judge and condemn?
Most believers at the one point of a transcendent omniscient Christ would say of the former, “this is my position.” As Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms and uttered the famous phrase, Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht Anders tun. Gott hilfe mir. Amen (“Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen”) we who claim are kin to his stated beliefs of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia,Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria should take that same stand on Truth – a truth determined to us by Grace through Faith in Christ Alone for the Glory of God.
So how do we receive this faith that could help us get beyond our mere experience into the unseen world which only the proper faith can illuminate for us?
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” Romans 10:17 ESV
Sola Scriptura “by scripture alone” is how any who claim to know the true God glimpses into the unknowable – by the way not any ‘ole scripture or faith will do. It is through the lens of Scripture that we can testify about our faith in Christ, for it is through Scripture we learn about Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, the incarnation of God who became flesh and dwelt among us. It is through the Scripture we discover what God commends and what God condemns. It is through its passages that we get a glimpse of the majesty and presence of a Holy God who interacts with creation and how He created humanity “in His own image” to have a relationship and fellowship with Him. It is through the Scripture that we learn about a long fought spiritual (yet real) war, an unseen (yet real) enemy, the presence of sin, its depravity, and its consequences. It is through the Scripture that God makes a way for the world through the gift of His Son, a lifted up sacrifice on a cross so that the world could turn toward Jesus and be redeemed if they only would. It is through Scripture that we learn of eternal rewards to those who by grace through faith follow and obey Christ in a place called Heaven; and eternal punishment, banishment, and suffering of those who reject Christ in a place called Hell.
Most who claim the title “Christian” accept the transcendent reality of Christ Jesus, and a perfunctory understanding of the uniqueness of Scripture in helping to peer into the unknown world that only faith can see with any clarity. It is after this that often Christians diverge into doctrinal and interpretive disputations, all under the category of what I call “epistemological rationalism.”
Rationalism starts with the premise that the only thing knowable is myself since nothing else is provable – Cogito ergo sum – (“I think therefore I am”). If the only thing that is knowable are my thoughts, then nothing else can be known as true – everything is then relative only to my perceptions of what is true (myself) with my experience being my only guide.
Renee Descartes, the philosopher that is credited with rationalism, found himself in a quandary. As a good Catholic who went to mass regularly, these stated thoughts and beliefs would find him outside of mainstream Church doctrine (and he had many accusers who did so state this). He walked away from the precipice by claiming an interesting ontological argument. The idea of “Perfect” is so unknowable in an imperfect world, how can anyone know what the word means except that the meaning is innate? The only Perfect “being” would then be God, who would not desire me to be deceived in not knowing what is around me. I can then accept at face value the natural world as I see it and accept its reality – the “Perfect” would not will otherwise.
Just like Descartes, there are many Christians who do not accept the truth premise of Scripture in light of their own reason – a reason often dictated and defined by “reason,” cultural bias, or “personal experience”. So they often pick and choose those truths that they embrace or reject based upon an experience alone (or lack thereof) and discount the rest as unreasonable, unknowable, or regulated as cultural bias inserted into the Scriptural text. In example, I did a paper in my Systematic Theology class of the Christology of Wolfgang Pannenberg. It was my privilege to take a course under Millard Erickson (Christian Theology aka “The Green Monster”) who did extensive research with Pannenberg. Dr. Pannenberg accepted the uniqueness of Christ and His resurrection via a personal experience he had in his youth. However, Pannenberg rejected the virgin birth of Christ as “unreasonable” albeit outside of his personal rational understanding. Pannenberg rejects the faithful reading of the Scripture which promotes the unique and miraculous conception of the Messiah, while only holding as true those items which fit under his personal experience and a connection to what he terms ”reasonable.” The resurrection can be reasonable because of Pannenberg’s connection to Christ vis a vis his experience – yet any other claims of the supernatural that do not conform to his experience would not fit his template as being “reasonable.” This is what I call “Selective Epistemological Rationalism” and is in stark contrast to the Biblical definition of true Christian faith as defined by Hebrews 11 and Romans 10:17.
Consider the following short list as examples and consider the stated truth of the Scripture (as found in its pages) for each and the various rationalizations of many Christians (and Baptists) who blog today:
Creation – Evolution
Abortion – Choice
Homosexuality
Home and Family Life
Church and State
The Image of God versus “Fictionalized Accounts”
Universalism
Trans-cultural Evangelism
Inerrancy of Scriptures
Women in Ministry
Virgin Birth
Here is my question. How does Hebrews 11 and Romans 10:17 affect each and every one of these issues beyond our individual perception? Does God give us a stated truth in Scripture which we accept and receive by faith an answer to each? Or are there many “truthful” answers that one can accept within individual or cultural differences through our own reason and experience that could be acceptable to God?
This whole argument regarding the foundation or “basis” of our knowledge of God, and therefore the parameters by which we must/should live, has taken a bigger space in my own thinking in recent years. As you say the epistemological anchor is the word of God. [Romans 10:17]
With many “life choices” we can receive discernable direction based upon God’s word. However, in some cases the resolution to the ambugity that we are facing is not so clear. One reason is that, holding a high view of scripture as constant, different people can have different interpretations of Biblical text. One area in your list that comes to mind would be “women in ministry”.
Rob,
I agree with Roger here. The exact position we take in regard to many of the issues in your list, in addition to our epistemological grounding, is a matter of hermeneutics. At times, different people with the same appreciation for and commmitment to the authority of Scripture come out with different answers to some of these questions. Now, as heirs of the Protestant Reformation, we also believe that, on the really important ones, Scripture is sufficiently clear as to not be misinterpreted. There really is not a lot of wiggle room.
I am also in basic agreement with you (and I don’t assume you are not also in agreement with Roger and me here) on the priority of Scripture as our epistemological grounding. If we aren’t agreed there, it makes little sense trying to sort out the hermeneutical differences among us. There must at least be agreement that once we know what Scripture is truly saying, we know what the truth on any particular matter is.
Music has a lot of expressions yet it is all music. Truth can be expressed in a variety of ways and paradigms, yet it is still truth.
However, there is a lot of noise that is trying to pass for music and much noise that makes no pretense at all of being remotely musical. Tan Dun is one of the most inspiring composers I know who are exploring artistically the border between music and noise.
There is a lot of so-called truth that isn’t and some who are spouting self-contradictions, calling it paradox, and then naming truth that is not truth. Like your students who refuse to judge Hitler. Hopefully, none of them are black, gay, Jewish, or non-Aryan for Hitler would hardly be one to reciprocate. So what do these folks do with non-reciprocal truth claims?
I have no problem with them stating that all truth is relative. That means they affirm my statement that Truth rests within the absolute nature of the Godhead, is best expressed in Jesus Christ, and is accessible to all who seek it, though it be not far from any one of us.
There’s a whole bunch of stuff I don’t know, and more I know but don’t understand, but this part of it all I know for sure: we don’t have dominion over … authority over .. discretionary personal rights over .. God’s word any more than my local traffic court had authority to overturn the United States Supreme Court. All these folks who can’t understand how “this” could be true in light of “that”? Well … that’s right. They cannot understand.
My failure to understand electricity doesn’t impair its ability to KILL ME.
We don’t EVER figure things out about God. He reveals them. And I’m 71 and cannot believe the stuff He has shown me on the last three Sundays, sitting in a Sunday School class.
On Hitler, WA Criswell and the Sola Scriptura
Rob and friends:
Have your philosophy students check this out and do please come back to SBC impact and give us a report of how the discussion goes in light of Sola Scriptura
http://jsr.fsu.edu/Volume10/Freeman.pdf
How was Criswell in 1956, the incarnation of Sola Scriptura in the Southern Baptist Convention; how was he superior in virtue to Hitler.
Strong case can be made it was just a slight matter of degree.
It is Stewart Newman in this story, a proff at what wast to become the highly maligned Southeastern Baptist Seminary, that carried the banner for what most of us today said was a proper reading of Scripture.
Your Hebrews passages are strong. I can’t find any fault in them. In fact I hold them as high as you do.
But when you apply the rest of your argument, and want to hold dear to BFM 2000 it just doesn’t scour.
There are too many incarnations, too much Word made Flesh in my lifetime and experience that differ with you on the social issues and all the baggage of the last 30 years in the SBC to convince me different.
Consider the realpolitik world of Richard Land and Karl Rove; consider Charles Marsh’s Wayward Christian Soldiers where he does a great study of Bonhoeffer as distinct from Bobby Welch’s military hero Boykin.
Look at what Marsh, whose father was a contemporary of Adrian Rogers at NOBTS; look at where Marsh now sees the SBC of his youth in Mississippi in light of how he nows sees the Gospel and interprets his Dad’s pilgrimmage in the SBC.
Sola Scriptura is strong. Marilynne Robinson has a strong dose of it in her take on the world. Like Marsh she has written about Bonhoeffer; but too much of her politics comes out with a different calculus than yours.
I think all of us still have much to learn from DAvid Gushee at Mercer and Barry Hankins at Baylor. It may be some blessing in disguise that Ken Starr’s arrival there will open up further discussions of the politics of Richard Land, the SBC and Karl Rove and we can see deeper into how these notions of Inerrancy and Sola Scriptura played out in our lives in the United States in the last 40 years.
Please do share the article above with your students.
Thanks
While the doctrine of inerrancy cannot be said to be salvific, there is no question that the suggestion by some mainstream/moderate christians that the Bible is not inerrant is repugnant to Christians to say the least. If the Bible is not inerrant (I’m using the term as expressed in the Chicago Statement) and we have to pick through the Bible to find the scripture then we have a very cruel God who leaves us to our own devices to try to plod our way through the text to discover His message. In contrast, Christians affirm the inerrancy of scripture and stood for that doctrine during the Conservative Resurrgence against the putrid suggestion that the Bible “contains” the word of God rather than the fact that it is the word of God.
And I’m just happy to think I might even be ABLE to do something described as “Selective Epistemological Rationalization”. Certainly that’d require a college degree or something, and I ain’t got none.
I think all of us still have much to learn from DAvid Gushee at Mercer
I agree with you completely. We can all learn the sorts of ridiculous theological conclusions one can reach when scripture is twisted and ignored. As the author of the above post states “It is through the Scripture we discover what God commends and what God condemns.” Therefore, when we read Gushee blathering about the fact that homosexuality is not incompatible with Christianity, we know that he is completely ignoring scripture and twisting it to his own ends since the Bible is crystal clear that homosexuality is always a sin without any exception whatsoever.
I just copied the following out of Wikipedia on Sola Scriptura:
“Sola scriptura may be contrasted with prima scriptura, which holds that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he or she should live. Examples of this include the general revelation in creation, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.
Sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority, other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, biblical commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.”
I have also read some that make a distinction between “sola scriptura” and “solo scriptura.” From what I pick up, “solo scriptura” is the view that all secondary sources of authority are unnecessary, or perhaps even useless. That sounds a bit extreme to me, though. Perhaps someone else can help me to understand this better.
It seems there are some fine lines of nuance between these three views.
Another way of looking at this question is through the grid of the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral:
* Scripture – the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
* Tradition – the two millennia history of the Christian Church
* Reason – rational thinking and sensible interpretation
* Experience – a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ
As I see it, these other sources of knowledge have a degree of validity, but only in a secondary sense, and always subject to Scripture. They can be helpful, though, in helping to discern what Scripture really teaches, whenever it is not totally clear.
Also, there are certain areas/points of truth that Scripture does not directly deal with. Yet, all truth is God’s truth. But God’s truth will never contradict Scripture, correctly interpreted.
David
Good point. I agree with you that, while they are not scripture, secondary sources of knowledge are quite useful. Sometimes it seems like the problem is that people want to elevate one of those (reason or experience, fir instance) to a level on par with God’s word. That’s where the real problem is, methinks.
Interesting thoughts, DAvid, no kidding; but doesn’t help me place WA Criswell in much better perspective given his convictions to 1956 on toward 68 when he had a Revelation that made it possible for him to be President of the SBC.
As far as I can tell he maintained his ideological notions highly influenced by the John Birch Society to the end.
His dealings with the SBC Conservative Resurgence, as some have called him the Godfather of fundamentalism in the SBC, has to be seen in that light and to a large extent Sola Scriptura in the heritage of the SBC interpretted through those ideological influences on Criswell and his shadow to this day in BFM 2000.
Brother David R,
What would be the difference between your position and that of Prima Scriptura?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Stephen,
I would have to do some more homework on that one before being able to give you a good answer.
FTME,
That is a tough question, and one I am wrestling with. In order to have any semblance of understanding of Scripture, you are going to have to use your reason. Also, none of us is free from the biases of our particular experiences. And, indeed, the Holy Spirit guides us in a way that might be described as experience, inasmuch as those who approach Scripture with a regenerate and submissive heart, relying on the illumination of the Spirit, are able to understand it better than those who don’t. And then, church history, tradition, and the collective insights and observations of other Christians down through history and around the world, serve as a sort of check and balance over against my possibly being overly subjective in my own interpretation of Scripture.
But, the bottom line, as I see it, is seeking to understand what Scripture really teaches. And, to the degree we are able to do that, that trumps all the other sources.
Here is a good example. Hugh Ross, in his writings (I can’t remember exactly where right now, to reference it) makes the point that all truth is God’s truth, and that general or natural revelation is just as true as special revelation. In seeking to understand Genesis 1, for instance, there are elements that would lead us to take it literally, and others that would lead us to take it more symbolically, or poetically. We must use our reason to determine whether the intention of the author was for us to understand the text literally or symbolically or poetically. Natural revelation (i.e. what we observe around us) may be a factor in helping us to arrive at our conclusion, as well. But, this process must be undertaken in a spirit of humility and submission to the sovereign authority of God and His revelation. If, at the core, our motivation is to place our independent criteria above that of His revelation to us, whether general or special, we are bound to arrive at false conclusions. And, if our observation of nature leads us to conclusions that appear to contradict Scripture, Scripture takes priority; our observation is wrong.
(Since I am not quoting directly, someone else may need to confirm that I am representing Ross accurately, here).
Stephen,
1) Your argument in comparing WA Criswell and Adolf Hitler and then concluding that they have “only a difference in degrees” is egregious, specifically when you stopped short in listing the comparisons. A) They don’t compare, even one iota – B) I will not countenance further discussion on the matter. I would politely suggest you consider your rhetoric when you start comparing imperfect Christians who attempt to do their best and monstrously evil mass murderers. I will personally edit or delete any further post that would further this spurious argument.
2) No argument was made on politics, BFM2000, or any such in the original article. In the respect that faithful Christians receiving guidance from the Scriptures and then making application to their lives, churches, and communities based upon what their eyes of faith have revealed then that is what they should do. What I suspect is that those who read the Bible at face value find the truths revealed that drive you to great fear and apoplexy. I respectfully submit that your problem is not with them – your problem is with the Scripture itself, and how you have rationalized your life in contradiction to it’s clear teaching. Ultimately that is what troubles you I suspect.
3) I did not believe Christians believed in Hinduism. That faith teaches that there are many “incarnations of God.” In fact the Bible says that there is only “one begotten Son” only one “incarnation” and that is Jesus The Christ. If you are looking for groups who hold to your philosophy of “many incarnations” then by all means look up Echart Tolle, “A New Earth.” I am certain that there are many groups doing Internet discussions on the subject. The problem that many of us faithful Scripture readers had with some of the stalwarts you mentioned is that they were taking us down the same road as Echart wants to take the world.
4) You come off as a disgruntled, bitter, and contemptuous person online. You are mad at conservative, mad at right wing politicians, and mad at anyone who would think that way. You probably think those who would not believe the same way you do is stupid and idiotic (just going by what you write). Where is the love of Jesus you claim in all that friend? “Come, Let Us Reason Together”
Rob
Stephen,
After seeing Rob’s comment to you, I realized I had not yet read carefully your comment #5, which was the context of your comment #11, nor the article you link to there. Neither do I have time right now to do so.
But, it appears to me, at first glance, that Rob is probably on-base in what he is saying. And, I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I didn’t consider what you say in #5 as being over the top. Indeed, comparing Criswell to Hitler does appear to be way over the top.
That being said, I don’t want to just stick my head in the sand, and refuse to even read the evidence you present for your view. It will just have to be all in good time.
Rob Ayers:
You said to Stephen Fox:
“4) You come off as a disgruntled, bitter, and contemptuous person online. You are mad at conservative, mad at right wing politicians, and mad at anyone who would think that way. You probably think those who would not believe the same way you do is stupid and idiotic (just going by what you write). Where is the love of Jesus you claim in all that friend? “Come, Let Us Reason Together”
Rob”
Rob, you never disappoint me when you say such things above. Is Stephen Fox not allowed to have his views without your attacking him?
Just askin?
Rob:
You come across to me mad at anybody who might not be a Southern Baptist Republican, mad at Democrats, and mad at anyone who might think that way. You appear incapable of believing someone just might hold a different view.
How can someone reason with you?
Where is your love of Jesus in that?
It is funny how things can cut both ways.
Friends:
Look what Criswell said in that article
To a joint session of the SC legislature he said: You would call a Chigger a Chiggerow now would ya; and I wouldn’t let my daughter within two city blocks of one of those Big BlackBucks.
Look at it in the context of the times,Criswell’s power and influence.
Look at what Stewart Newman said to him in response in 1968 after the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and MLKing Jr.
Look at it all in historical perspective and something is afoul.
Consider the work of Charles Marsh, son of David’s DAd’s contemporary at NOBTS.
I don’t think I am bitter; I’m just asking you to look square in the face of where inerrantists failed miserably in the past.
Thank-you Tom
Parker for having insight into my rationale here.
And DAvid Rogers, I genuinely appreciate your willingness so far to try to see where I am coming from.
Read the article thoroughly and think about it over a day or two.
Be open to reading Marsh’s book soon as you can make time for it.
Thanks
sfox
Tom,
Those things don’t “cut both ways”. Rob is correct in his stance and view of scripture. Stephen isn’t. Period. It’s pretty cut and dried.
Ken Chafin and Paige Patterson:
What gets lost in all this talk about Sola Scriptura and the Inerrant Bible is what Ken Chafin was trying to point out in his debate with Paige Patterson in April of 1987 at Samford University where I heard Chafin Say:
A Bible in the hands of a believer who will not submit it to rational means of investigation is a dangerous thing and has often been used to prop up injustice.
Now I know Justice is a moving object and almost impossible to obtain in this world, but at our best we must try.
With the politics of the SBC and its hardwiring to Criswell in the 60′s and Ronald Reagan where his policies toward South Africa andapartheid got entangled with Richard Land and Jerry Falwell and the emerging leadership of the SBC; and then in the first decade of this century that Charles Marsh explores in his book; sometimes this Sola Scriptura talk covers up a multitude of sins, misguided passion, becomes the sacramentalization of politics that is quite foreign to even the best ideals of David Rogers as he tried to explore just a few days ago on the Idolatry of Politics.
Chafin had the high road in 87 and he was defeated in the SBC and wherever we are now, high talk about Sola Scriptura, much of which I honor, will not reviseSBC History nor cover the eggregious sins committed during the Conservative Resurgence, nor those ofCriswell before then; Criswell who set it up.
Marilynne Robinson is my flag bearer on the Authority of Scripture.
But there is a world of difference between her respect for Scripture and the implementation of such doctrine here on this board and the programs you fund through the CP of the SBC.
We have to talk about it honestly; and maybe Ken Starr’s Baylor would be a grand place to continue the conversation.
Roger,
Good to “see” you again. Since I have been absent from posting, I have missed the collegial conversations of many “friends” – you being one of them.
I hesitated to place “women in ministry” on my list – but since part of publishing is to create discussion from various points of view, I went ahead and took the plunge. While many want to place this under what David calls “hermeneutic variation” I really have trouble taking that in connection with Paul’s admonition in 1 Timothy 3.
My trouble is ascertaining the end of divine inspiration and the beginning of the same. We marvel and majesty at the work of Paul in discussion the Christian theology to the Romans, but then question his orientation and “cultural bias” toward women. I agree that first century culture treated women a certain way = Paul being a man of his culture. At the same time I notice the sovereignty of God who, at the right time and place, inspired His word to be written through imperfect humans living in imperfect times in order to establish a perfect revelation. In other words, God did not wait for the Pauline epistles to be written in our more “progressive” culture in terms of women in the culture – He allowed and willed it to be done then. And while we can Nash and wail about how that culture treated women sub-humanly, I do not believe that God allowed His instruments to treat the same with indifference. It is the same Paul who uttered the words, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” How can that be inspired, yet 1 Timothy 3 (among others) are not? Taken at face value I would have to say that Paul was fairly clear in his instructions to Timothy. And as a response I would agree predicated upon that word which gives me the insight of faith that women should not desire to aspire to the role of Pastor. And truthfully (right or wrong), that was a consensus view (or at least a majority view) of Christians for centuries. The alternative view might be an example of “selective epistemological rationalism” – an argument of popular cultural pressures in the face of a counter scriptural admonition. Certainly those who hold the traditional view are subjected to both ridicule and scorn by both the contrariarians and the world around us. Think about that for a while.
Rob
Brother Rob,
One guy framed this conversation on epistemology as …..
“The solution that the Protestants came up with was essentially a Scriptural epistemology. They said that we should believe what the Bible says, which sometimes contradicts what people within the Church said. Lots of protestants today still say this, but the big problem with it is the question of who interprets the Bible – the problem of hermeneutics. Actually, saying that we know things because the Bible says them is just shifting the epistemological problem to be a hermeneutical problem.
The most common idea among the Protestants is that it’s my idea about what the Bible means that is right and other people who disagree with me are wrong. This led to a few influential teachers (e.g. Melanchton, Calvin) essentially writing books to tell people how to interpret the Bible correctly. And quite a lot of people followed them, and denominations were born.”
I believe the first distinction of how we might define our own voyage into epistemology, or “how we are persuaded”,…is to “recognize and serve” where persuasion originates. For instance, if we really believe Jesus is the Son of God, ….that thought came about through a faith that has been delivered, originating in God….
John 1:12-14 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (14) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
So our initial persuasion is by God alone. The fruit of that same Spirit develops our understanding and how we go about persuading and how we are being persuaded.
Galatians 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. …….. the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (5:22-23)
If our persuasion is changed by our flesh, then we should be able to recognize the change and move back toward Christ. The flesh tends to move toward the post-modern approach and away from the Word made flesh. Yet, the only way we know is by living in the Word.
Blessings,
Chris
Stephen,
All people are imperfect. Me, you, the whole wide world. If I am delibitated from doing right and good because those who agree with my philosophy or are “on my side” sinned and did wrong showing their imperfection, then we would never get anything accomplished, and evil would be victorious. Our standard bearer of perfection is not other people = it is Christ.
Your article is a fine example of how even some who understand truth often are imperfect in their understanding of truth, and prefer to allow their upbringing and culture rationalize for them falsehoods. I am not afraid to say that WA was terribly wrong then. But you have cooked your own goose = neither WA took his “teachings” from Scripture, and none if any of your preferred “teachers” do either. They are just as guilty as pleading rationalizations over scriptural truth as WA was about race and segregation.
Rob
Chris,
What believers have framed about the Scriptures is not epistemology (although it is our epistemological anchor) – it is metaphysics, supernatural. What we are dealing with the work of Scriptures is a metaphysical being communicating with finite beings in a way that they can understand. The means of glimpsing into the metaphysical reality which is Christ is the device of Romans 10:17 – “faith comes by hearing the word of Christ” with the understanding of “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the presence of things not seen” – Hebrews 11:1. Is it any wonder that the writer of Hebrews says, “without faith it is impossible to please God?”
Rob
Comment #24 is excellent in explanation and conciseness. Thank you Rob.
I’ll second cb’s motion with a resounding yes…..! Good stuff,
Thanks,
Chris
Thank you CB.
I guess that is in comparison to many of my verbose and lengthy replies
Rob
Rob:
In re comment 23, I don’t any problem with the substance of it; true WA Criswell was not the only sinner.
But from his view of Scripture, Inerrancy, developed a crusade that most folks in the Resurgence never questioned; and for me the tool of inerrancy is defective and is not distinct from Criswell’s myopia on one of the greatest issues of his day.
His defective tool, inerrancy, facilitated his sin of Racism.
I’m not saying all Resurgents are racists; I’m saying in Criswell’s time his tool in understanding Scripture was very poor; and Chafin carrying a different stance as late as 87 in his discussion with Paige Patterson, Criswell’s disciple, carried that bad gene of the inerrancy tool for understanding Scripture.
I want us to stay civil and I think so far we are.
This afternoon I read a strong dose of NT Wright’s latest: After you Believe; Why Christian Character Matters.
It is endorsed from Timothy George to STanley Hauerwas a pretty broad spectrum
Wright talks about Scripture at length in his construct of the circle of Christian Virtue.
I think he has Scripture in better perspective than the resurgents; his View very high.
I am lot more comfortable with his perspective than I am with Ronnie Floyd,Mohler, Land, Patterson,Bobby Welch and Wrights’s implementation In the Church and our common civic life.
He makes a strong case.
I hope you can make time to take a look at your nearest bookstore.
Steve Fox,
George does not agree with Hauerwas relating to inerrancy. That is a long stretch to try to accomplish based on any evidence derived from the reading of either.
Certainly there is no inference on your part that such is the case, right?
BTW, I was present when Hauerwas debated Patterson. It cannot honestly be said that Hauerwas won the debate. Actually, it was quite the contrary.
Stephen,
Inerrancy is not the cause of racism – that is myopic. That is a fallacious argument called false cause. It is liken to saying, “I bought an Big Mac, and drove out of the drive-through and had a wreck. It was the Big Mac’s fault.” Inerrancy (as formulated by the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, 1978) is only a stated definition which encapsulates Sola Scriptura: God is the author of Scripture (OT/NT) so that the original autographs are inerrant and infallible. Those who hold to that are fallible human beings – but that does nothing to the statement of inerrancy. In Example, Preacher A may have condoned segregation and at the same time supported inerrancy. That does not make inerrancy evil (genetic fallacy); that merely makes the preacher who supported segregation wrong about supporting segregation.
Show me chapter and verse in any context that the Scripture condones in any way shape or form the conclusion that we treat humans created in the image of God like dogs – or that God would countenance such. At that point inerrancy would be difficult to hold. But you are going to have to prove that Scripture does indeed support racism.
I expect that you will look long and hard. But I have patience.
Rob
I found my way to this discussion via Stephen Fox and BaptistLife.Com. By way of larger historical perspective, Mark Noll (no theological liberal) argues (in The Civil War as a Theological Crisis) that the southern antebellum biblical literalism (that would one day contribute to the birthing of inerrancy) provided a theological buttress for white supremacy and black slavery. Since that time, biblical inerrancy has often (although certainly not always, and certainly not exclusively) found a receptive home among white southerners who continued to cling to a belief in the inequality of the races into modern times. There is, in short, a long historical correlation between racial inequality and biblical inerrancy.
Yet inerrancy itself is a distraction from the Bible, a reflection not of scripture (the Bible – whichever of the many Bibles, past or present, one chooses – does not affirm its own textual perfection), but of a human desire for an authoritatively-positioned textual document from which one can bring forth one’s own chosen beliefs (via interpretation) as … authoritative. It is much ado about nothing (there are no original “autographs,” and hence there is no possibility of a perfect text) and yet upon it hinges everything: that is, textual inerrancy of holy writ is the ultimate human attempt to position faith in a quantified finality befitting our modern scientific era.
That a human being’s religious faith could reside on the precipice of a fragile construct of pen (or quill) and paper (or parchment) and a human alphabet – and come crashing to the ground should the construct slip in the least manner – is an indictment not of scripture, but rather of a faith enslaved to a self-serving rationalism that projects a God of one’s own creation.
To force scripture to submit to the human construct of inerrancy, in short, is to enslave scripture and bind God, while placing human reasoning in the seat of authority.
So, southern theological liberalism gave rise to inerrancy? Um, ever hear of B.B. Warfield? Princeton Theological Seminary? Where is Princeton again? New Jersey? Yeah, might want to recheck that theory.
The Bible is inerrant. All Christians recognize that. Does the phrase “Suck it up and deal with it” mean anything? Thank you Stephen and Bruce for reminding everyone why the Conservative Resurrgence was a good thing, a God thing, and that it didn’t go nearly far enough.
Bruce said: “(There are no original ‘autographs,’ and hence there is no possibility of a perfect text) and yet upon it hinges everything.”
Inerrancy (per the qualifications of the Chicago Statement) is an honest attempt to deal with the reality of the situation. It is true–we don’t have the original “autographs.” And yet, the science of textual criticism has advanced to such a stage that we have a pretty good idea of what they actually said.
And, the alternatives, as I see it, are: 1) an ecclesiological Magistrate that appears to frequently contradict itself, is just as hard to pin down (and more so) than the “elusive” orignal autographs, and which, according to my (and many, many others’) rational reading, contradicts what Scripture teaches in several crucial areas; 2) an “anything goes,” hocus pocus, “blind leap of faith” epistemology; or 3) the selective epistemological rationalism Rob refers to in this post.
Though the concept of inerrancy is indeed complex, and even, at times, messy, given the other alternatives, it is the best one out there for someone who pretends to take seriously a God who truly exists, and who wants to communicate His will to us, so we can build the house of our life and belief system upon it (Matthew 7:24-27).
Bruce,
I can see why many people believe that Paul’s encouragement to Timothy is simply much ado about nothing based upon your viewpoint. Timothy must have known what to study to show himself approved unto God, not man. Today’s culture certainly does follow your scheme, but the scheme you project has no substance or evidence, of which faith actually does. When God breathed his scripture, as it was it still remains certain, substantive, and evidential.
Blessings,
Chris
Rob,
In James 2:5 it says, “Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world [to be] rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?”
I think this verse needs to be added to the scripture equation here. Many are seldom motivated to literally become poor to prove this verse. Poor is more than the lack of money. It is also the lack of education, too. No heritage, no pedigree, no opportunity, no personality, not much of anything going for them at all. How do we place ourselves here? Maybe it is God who blesses these people with nothing because Hebrews 6:11 says, “But without faith [it is] impossible to please [Him]…..” The kingdom paradigm is opposite of what we can imagine. Heaven will be filled with those who were rich in faith since that will be the only thing not consumed in the fire.
Good post, Rob. I always learn something new when you guys bring things to light on sbcIMPACT. Thank you.
Bruce
David:
You provide an honest apologetic for inerrancy. Yet let me suggest an even better alternative than the ones you lament: that of allowing the Bible to be the Bible on its own terms. If we dare.
Indeed, how can we claim to take scripture seriously if we continually tell it what it is and what it says?
Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Gant. In Comment 31 above Bruce Gourley references Mark Noll.
Hers is a fine paragraph from a review of Noll’s book on the Civil War:
Although warfare, and Noll notes “the more cataclysmic the better,” is frequently “the mother of theological profundity,” this was not the case in the Civil War. If religion was one of the glues holding an increasingly diverse and expanding Union together for much of the period under discussion in Clark’s work, by the mid–1840s this bond was already loosening with the schism of both the Baptist and Methodist churches along sectional lines. It was not that old certainties were fading; very far from it. Noll usefully and succinctly traces the growth of “the alliance between religious values and Enlightenment, covenantal, and republican values” in the years preceding the Civil War, and stresses that theological “reasoning during the Civil War rested on this grand intellectual alliance.” Its weakness lay in its inability to “unify the nation’s sectional interests,” and so the “story of theology in the Civil War was a story of how a deeply entrenched intellectual synthesis divided against itself.” Since God did not manifest Himself with any degree of clarity to either side, it “was left to those consummate theologians, the Reverend Doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually meant,” Noll observes, a conclusion that sails close to the argument that God is usually on the side of the biggest battalions. Ulysses S. Grant was never very happy when he heard that particular argument, or any variation of it, but in its theological manifestation, of course, with Union victory came a resolution of sorts that northern scriptural interpretation, in a new, secular form was and would for evermore be the American way.
End Quote
I might add our friend and D. Rogers fellow signer of the Memphis Declaration, Wade Burleson, blogged on the very quote of Noll about the Right Reverends Grant and Lee last year or so.
Fascinating article DAvid Rogers in particular may want to make time for as soon as possible.
I may come back to the last paragraph in the article shortly; but at this moment more reason to consider Charles Marsh’s thoughts on the Lausanne Covenant in particular in the frame of the last paragraph of this review.
As Gourley continues to engage this discussion, I am curious to know if he has seen this one yet. I just came across it this morning.
http://www.carleton.ca/underhillreview/08/fall/reviews/grant.htm
Rob:
In a side comment, I mentioned “women in ministry”.
I don’t hold to that position. However, I believe that a person could be either a complementarian or egalatarian and still hold to inerrancy.
Lets’s take I Timothy 3: “an overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, . . . .” [HCSB].
I don’t think any of us take that verse literally. If we did then we would not allow single men to be pastors.
My stab at the meaning of the text is, “an overseer can not be in a homosexual or polygamous relationship”
We have to interpret the text in view of the context. I’m a complementatian myself — that is my view based upon my understanding of Biblical text taken along with Baptist polity and tradition.
If I was an egalatatian I’d probably join a church that held that view. I wouldn’t start a “fight” over the issue because the issue is not worth fighting over.
An additional point, pronouns such as “he” don’t help us much because in most languages, which I believe includes Greek, there is not pronoun to replace “he” or “she” which means “he or she”. It is very common to use “he” when “a person of either gender” is in view.
Bruce Gourley,
My first thought was to dig up a long list of Bible passages in which the Bible (and Jesus’ words recorded in the Bible) testify to its own authority and trustworthiness. But, I am confident that you (and the great majority of our readers at sbcIMPACT) are already well aware of these passages. If push comes to shove, I can dig up a good list. Or, if someone else reading this has a good list at their fingertips, they might want to consider posting it in another comment.
In any case, inerrancy, as I understand it, is a modern (as opposed to pre-modern or post-modern) attempt to explain the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible in scientific terms, seeking to wrestle honestly with the difficulties involved.
It is because of our belief in inerrancy (call it infallibility, or truthfulness, or trustworthiness, if you will) that textual criticism is so important. If, once we were able to determine whether a word, phrase, or passage truly belonged in the Bible or not, we still were not sure whether or not to submit to its authority, why bother? Also, as I understand it, inerrancy is at the root of our motivation for biblical hermeneutics. If it really is God’s Word, we should want to do the best we possibly can to try to understand what it is really saying to us. If it is not God’s Word, then our opinion, or that of someone else, may well be just as valid.
In other words, the bottom line on this, as I see it, is: Once I (together with the rest of the faith community) have given my best effort at determining what truly comprises God’s Word, and objectively interpreting God’s Word, whenever I am faced with a choice between what, according to my sinful, limited human perspective, seems right, ethical, or wise to me, and what I believe God’s Word to say, if I am truly submitted to the authority of an Almighty God, I must go with His Word. I must also seek to be brutally honest with myself as to what I believe God’s Word to say, and why I choose to believe it.
Roger,
I just read your comment, right after I posted my last one. I believe there is a tie-in between them.
According to what I just wrote to Bruce, I don’t have the option, as a submissive Christian, of just disregarding the phrase “the husband of one wife” just because it doesn’t appear to make sense to me. Rather, I must do my best to try to determine, given the context in which it was originally written, just what the author was intending to communicate. Could it be, for instance, that, when he said “the husband of one wife,” he was just meaning to say someone who is faithful in their sexual relationships? Could he be meaning to say that they should be men (and not women)? Could he be meaning to say they should not be polygamists?
On the surface, any of these options is possible. However, we should not let our personal preference and sense of what is right or ethical be the determining factor in the option we choose. We should rather, through the use of a solid historical-grammatical hermeneutic, try to honestly and objectively determine what the original author actually meant.
Roger,
You fall into a common habit of misusing the term “literally.” It is possible to take this verse literally, i.e. in a strict word for word sense and arrive at the conclusion you allude to. However, this presupposes an approach to the Bible that sees it as normative. We can take a rigidly literal “interpretation” of the verse and conclude that Paul disqualifies any but a married man from the ministry, while stating that such a practice is not normative on us.
As an example, how many here believe that the first chapters of Job provide a historical record of actual events and a transcription of a conversation between God and Satan or that these chapters provide a context to the seeming inexplicable events in the life of Job by styling this as a cosmic conflict between God and the Devil, i.e. that it is a literary device rather than a historical record? For that matter, the entire book of Job is much like a Shakespearean play. No one I know of believes that the Romans spoke in iambic pentameter, but they allow that the Bard based Julius Caesar on historic events. So too the book of Job contains no “real” conversation since it is clearly written in a highly poetic and stylized form. When I say that I don’t take the book of Job “literally” I mean that I believe it is a poem written to account for a historical event in much the same sense that “Julius Caesar” covers the Roman politician. This does not detract from the Bible to say this and keeps us from looking like idiots when talking about the Bible. However, I do believe the Bible was literally inspired by God and contains the very words that God intends for us to have.
Please do not confuse reading with interpretation with application. I recommend reading not only the Chicago statement on inerrancy, but also the Chicago statement on hermeneutics. As has been said before one can affirm inerrancy without acceding to nonsensical applications. At the same time, the variety of approaches to application is separate and distinct from issues of inerrancy and interpretation. Suffice to say, even if we knew what Paul said and what he intended to mean, that still doesn’t settle the question of whether it applies to us in a normative, legislative, ceremonial, or equivalent fashion to his intended audience.
Rick,
Yes. All that, too.
Rob has presented us with an excellent post that offers plenty of great things worth of discussion. The discussion of “truth” and Sola Scriptura should be enough to occupy us. His mention of Hitler probably triggered something in Fox that allowed an open door for him to walk through.
I usually don’t bother to read’s Fox’s posts too closely because they tend to jump all around and are difficult to follow even without all the name dropping that seem to imply some information we should all be aware of but aren’t. However his mention of W.A. Criswell brought the discussion to a different level. Without trying to understand Fox’s purpose I think it is helpful to a discussion on “truth” and Sola Scriptura to remember some of Criswell’s statements and their history in Baptist life.
In 1956 Criswell stated he supported social and religious segregation of the races and those who supported integration were infidels. He said this as part of his attack on SWBTS Ethics professor T.B. Matson who had spoken out bravely in support of racial equality and justice. This was the beginning of his long standing misguided claims of liberalism at Southwestern. In fact it was T.B. Matson who was speaking the truth and using Sola Scriptura as his basis and not Criswell.
In 1972 Criswell spoke out in support of Roe vs. Wade saying only after a child was born did it have life separate from the mother and became a person, therefore, what is best for the mother should be allowed. He said this under influence from his wealthy church members and with disregard for scripture. He was given a free pass on this statement and a chance to recant later by his supporters in the pseudo-conservative resurgence (PCR) political organization. However, those who do not support the PCR can have their statements twisted and distorted and used continuously used to make false charges of liberalism against them.
In 1984 Criswell said that the long held belief by Southern Baptists in the separation of church and state was the figment of an infidel’s imagination. In that statement he labeled Southern Baptists such as George W. Truett, R.G. Lee, Billy Graham and a host of others as infidels. This misuse of labels has been the hallmark of the PCR.
I could give many, many more examples of PCR leaders disregard of truth and sola scriptura. With apologies to David Miller, that is why many inerrantists like me because of our belief in “truth” and “sola scriptura” cannot support the PCR and must speak out when others try to say the PCR was about scripture and not power and control. I must say as Martin Luther, “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen”.
David,
And I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read your posts.
Good job.
rick
As an inerrantist, I would agree with David Roger’s post in #33. I am not a fanatic on whether one uses the word inerrancy or not. I would rather hear them explain in their own words what they believe about scripture and watch as their lives testify to their belief.
In regard to Rob’s post on truth of scripture and the various rationalizations that Christians and Baptist make, there is much we could discuss on the list he presented. Probably each one is worthy of its own blog post.
Creation – Evolution There is a broad range of definitions here that go from (1)God created the earth in 7 24 hour days about 7,000 years ago to (2)everything is by natural means with no supernatural involvement. Most find truth somewhere in between.
Abortion – Choice (1)Should all abortions be okay, or (2)only in the case of rape or incest or (3)never. Even among evangelical Christians some take either of the last two choices.
Homosexuality Should homosexuals, (1)be stoned or arrested, (2)be loved but told they are wrong or (3) God created them that way so they should be accepted.
Home and Family Life (1)Wife should be in total submission to the will of the husband, (2)Marriage is a partnership.
Church and State (1)Government should be a partner to force the religious views of the majority on the minority or (2) a free church in a free state or(3) complete separation of church and state.
The Image of God versus “Fictionalized Accounts” not sure what you mean
Universalism (1) all or saved or (2) you must have heard the name of Jesus to be saved. (3)Some say God in his sovereignty can save those who have never heard.
Trans-cultural Evangelism discussed elsewhere
Inerrancy of Scriptures already discussed in this post.
Women in Ministry (1) Women have all the gifts of ministry as men and can exercise them, (2)Women can only teach other women scripture. Some say they believe 2 but in practice accept 1.
Virgin Birth (1) You must believe in the virgin birth to be saved, Al Mohler, (2) the vigin birth is true but is not a primary belief, (3) virgin birth is a myth.
You can see there is a broad range of what some believe is true on these issues. Some are worth fighting over some are not. They all make for interesting discussion.
Ron, you said: “In fact it was T.B. Matson who was speaking the truth and using Sola Scriptura as his basis and not Criswell.”
I agree with you here, and with much of what you say in your last comment. And yet, we have people right here, in this very comment thread (Stephen Fox and Bruce Gourley), and in the comment thread before this one (Gene Scarborough), who appear (if I am understanding them correctly) to be arguing against both inerrancy and sola scriptura, and yet, who were considered (at least, by many) to be part of “mainstream” Baptist life before the CR. Are you suggesting that it would have been a good thing to just let these two different visions of biblical authority mutually coexist within Southern Baptist life?
Bruce Gourley and Stephen Fox, the following quote is from the founding document of the CBF:
“Many of our differences come from a different understanding and interpretation of Holy Scripture. But the difference is not at the point of the inspiration or authority of the Bible. We interpret the Bible differently, as will be seen below in our treatment of the biblical understanding of women and pastors. We also, however, have a different understanding of the nature of the Bible. We want to be biblical — especially in our view of the Bible. That means
that we dare not claim less for the Bible than the Bible claims for itself. The Bible neither claims nor reveals inerrancy as a Christian teaching. Bible claims must be based on the Bible, not on human interpretations of the Bible.”
From “Address to the Public: The founding document of Cooperative Baptist Fellowship”
http://www.thefellowship.info/Files/About-Us/Address.aspx
I’m wondering if you agree with the quote above. I’m trying to understand your viewpoint. If you do agree with the quote above, what is your view of the inspiration and authority of the Bible? If God breathed all of the original texts of Scripture (inspiration), how can there be errors in them? What do you believe about textual criticism and higher criticism? Do you agree with my view which follows? If you disagree with parts of it, with which parts do you disagree and why?
I believe in the plenary verbal view of inspiration—that all words written by the human writers of the Bible were inspired by God. I believe that all the words they wrote were without error. I affirm the inerrancy of the Bible. I believe in the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Scripture includes all knowledge necessary for living the Christian life, and it is the only infallible authority for faith and practice. It is authoritative in all areas of life that it touches. It is absolute truth that is applicable and authoritative for all cultures. The Bible is 100 percent correct. The Torah is described as being “perfect” (Psalm 19:7). I agree with every word of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement expresses my views of the Bible’s truthfulness quite well. I believe that the Bible does not merely contain divine revelation; rather, all of it is divine revelation. All of it is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), and God did not breathe error when He inspired Scripture. It was written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Inspiration is different from illumination. The Holy Spirit’s inspiration involved moving men to give God’s revelation: “For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit’s illumination involves helping people understand the revelation received: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God” (1 Corinthians 2:12). All the words in the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit. An author of a commentary on the Bible may have received illumination from the Holy Spirit. The words of the commentary, however, were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. The commentary is not the Word of God.
I am no expert on the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy
I understand there is a consensus that Clark Pinnock is close to one.
With no offense to David Rogers, and I mean no ill will here, but as I read the proceedings of the Ridgecrest 87 summit on inerrancy; Pinnock said almost 25 years ago Inerrancy was never conceived to be used the way it was as a tool to takeover the SBC.
That’s what Clark Pinnock said; and if you want to go back and read him and find something substantively different, then please do.
I think Adrian Rogers spoke on the 2nd or 3rd day.
Forgive me but I had just concocted a post that evaporated before it got put up.
I want to make sure I understand Ron West correctly on TB Matson.
It would be hard for me to believe TB Matson would’ve signed off on the Conservative Resurgence. I think West makes a strong point about Criswell and Matson and Sola Scriptura.
In my mind Matson is a strong witness for Sola Scriptura and against most of the direction of the SBC since the fundamentalist came in control; same for George Truett.
Is that what Ron West is saying??
Stephen,
From what I understand, Clark Pinnock, with his advocacy of open theism, and other things, has moved on well beyond where he once stood on issues of biblical authority.
And, I’m not saying the CR, and the true motivations behind it, are not a worthy topic of discussion, or that it is somehow taboo, or off-limits. But, I think that, in the context of this particular post, it is a bit of a red herring.
We are trying to discuss the merits and relative importance of sola scriptura as a basis for epistemology, in and of itself, apart from how some may or may not have used it as a weapon to advance other agendas during the CR. Yet, it seems like you (and others) want to continually harp on the same thing.
On a side note, a really good, long, and complicated comment I was working on this morning also evaporated into cyber-space, and I’m one of the contributors/moderators here. That is really frustrating, isn’t it? The cyber-gremlins must have it in for us today.
Oh, and let’s get this straight before it goes any further: The name is T. B. Maston, not Matson.
Gentlemen: I see many efforts to tell the Bible what it is and what it says, and few if any attempts to simply let the Bible be itself on its own terms. I also see much confusion over the concepts of authority (historically, Baptists have affirmed the Bible as their written authority in matters of faith and practice) and inerrancy (a modern construct, as David noted, a concept foreign to Baptists until the 20th century, and a human theory that is imposed upon scripture, not found within it; lest you start quoting scripture to prove the biblical nature of inerrancy, be warned: your Bibles do not speak of the Protestant canons you hold in your hands: biblical references to God’s “word,” with few exceptions, are not references to a text – and in the cases where they do reference a text, it is not to our Protestant canons; nor does the Bible claim perfection for itself; rather, some 20th century Baptists rationalize that because the Bible says X it really means Y – why? because we want it to say Y).
So, shape and re-shape your Bibles as you wish, to conform to your own personal needs and understandings of truth. Or, drop the pretenses of controlling the Bible and give it free reign to be itself. Most of us prefer controlling the Bible, for allowing the Bible freedom is a dangerous thing indeed (as our Baptist forefathers would testify, incidentally).
Ron,
You need to provide something to backup your statement that “This was the beginning of his [Maston's] long standing misguided claims of liberalism at Southwestern.” Maston himself was (and still is) viewed by fundamentalists as a liberal.
One of the reasons that we had to construct terms like inerrancy was not some desire to impose a modern construct on the Bible, but the modernist tendency to use common terms with different meanings.
Ultimately, we believe the Bible is truthful and authoritative (and that these two things are tied together – how can the Bible be authoritative if its truthfulness is limited?).
That has (as I understand it) been the historic position of our churches. We believe what the Bible says and regard it as the authority for our faith and practice.
Once, when you said you believed in the inspiration of scripture – that was enough. But then modernists (using the term from the early 20th Century debates) used the term their own way. They would say, “Yes, I believe in the inspiration of scripture” but defined that in their own way. They did not mean by that term what was generally meant by that term.
I saw that first hand at my liberal Baptist college in the 70′s.
So, we came up with a term like “infallible.” That term too was redefined by those who did not believe in the authority or full truthfulness of scripture.
My point is this: the term “inerrancy” was coined and defined (by the Chicago statement) in a attempt to define what the church has believed about the Bible. Yes, the term is newer, but it defines an older view.
We did not come up with that term to “reshape the Bible” but to prevent modernists/liberals from redefining the terms we used to describe our high view of scripture.
Baptists of generations gone by may not have used the term inerrancy, but they believed that the Bible was truth “without any mixture of error.” What is inerrancy if not truth without mixture of error. It is a newer term to describe an older concept more clearly.
Bruce,
Perhaps it is just wrangling over words, but, for the record, I am not saying inerrancy is just a “modern construct” in the sense that the idea itself is an invention of people coming from a modern mindset. What I am saying is that much of the terminology and definitions we use are a modern attempt to describe scientifically what has existed and been believed by devout Christians throughout church history.
It appears to me that a big part of what you are saying has to do with canon criticism. That is a complex issue, and though, admittedly, related to inerrancy, a bit of a rabbit trail, as well, from my perspective.
Can we agree that, if we were able to determine accurately what words, phrases and passages actually belong in the Bible, then those words, phrases and passages would be inerrant? If we can’t, then, it seems to me the discussion about the canon, at this particular juncture, is a red herring, as well.
Gentlemen, if Bruce Gourley and Stephen Fox would answer the questions I put forward in comment #47, our conversation would have more clarity. I wish to avoid ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments. Certainly we should be able to discuss any real theological differences on this site with civility. We must have clarity, however, in understanding exactly what our theological differences in regard to biblical inspiration are.
David and Dave:
Inerrancy is not a modern rewording of a historic belief in the truthfulness of the Bible; rather, it is a modern, scientific (as David rightly notes) view of the Bible which makes the Bible something that Christians historically never tried to make it: i.e., literal, textual perfection in all facets of composition and knowledge (in order, as David seems to indicate, to position the Bible as the ultimate authority upon the playing field of modern truth).
Again, the Bible does make a claim to its own textual perfection. Nor does the Bible claim verbal plenary inspiration of the biblical text. To force the Bible to be that which it claims not, violates scripture. In addition, no document exists upon which we could even theorize the modern construct of inerrancy might apply; inerrancy is thus vaporous and even meaningless, a figment of our imagination (literally) that is nonetheless important to persons unable to live with the ambiguity and tensions inherent within allowing the Bible to exist on its own terms. Inerrancy, in other words, is a reflection of the human mind grasping for modern religious authority, rather than a reflection of the Bible.
In addition, for one to insist that God’s “word” is (can be, was, or could be) perfectly contained within a human alphabet is an exercise in creating God, rather than affirming the Creator God.
NOTE:
My second paragraph about should read as follows (I left out one critical word):
Again, the Bible does NOT make a claim to its own textual perfection. Nor does the Bible claim verbal plenary inspiration of the biblical text. To force the Bible to be that which it claims not, violates scripture. In addition, no document exists upon which we could even theorize the modern construct of inerrancy might apply; inerrancy is thus vaporous and even meaningless, a figment of our imagination (literally) that is nonetheless important to persons unable to live with the ambiguity and tensions inherent within allowing the Bible to exist on its own terms. Inerrancy, in other words, is a reflection of the human mind grasping for modern religious authority, rather than a reflection of the Bible.
Okay Bruce,
I am tempted to say we are coming to an impasse here, the kind where one person says, “The sky is blue,” and the other says, “The sky is green.”
But, I will bear with this a little more, anyway. Baptist Theologue has already referenced a few of the many passages on biblical authority and trustworthiness. I’ll throw Psalm 119 and 19 into the mix for now, as well. You say none of these passages teach verbal plenary inspiration. I say they do. The sky is blue. The sky is green…
Maybe, if we back up a bit, we can get somewhere. What, for instance, do you believe about divine revelation? What about biblical inspiration? Did God actually lead certain individuals in history to write down words that accurately reflect His will and thoughts for us? Yes or no? Or, is all we have a vast array of religious writings, ancient history, philosophy, etc. that reflect something of the thoughts and context of the people who wrote them down, as they struggled with issues of ethics and meaning in life?
David, (or anyone that cares to answer)
I am curious, having been pretty young during the CR (born in 72) and really had no clue as to anything going on in the denomination at that time, why so many who obviously have a problem with the doctrine of inerrancy choose to stick around the SBC. What do you think?
Bruce Gourley and Fox, this is what I wrote. Read it carefully. Maybe I do not understand English grammar.
“In 1956 Criswell stated he supported social and religious segregation of the races and those who supported integration were infidels. He said this as part of his attack on SWBTS Ethics professor T.B. Matson who had spoken out bravely in support of racial equality and justice. This was the beginning of his long standing misguided claims of liberalism at Southwestern. In fact it was T.B. Matson who was speaking the truth and using Sola Scriptura as his basis and not Criswell.”
In the first sentence Criswell is subject. In the second sentence “He” refers to Criswell. In the third sentence “his” again refers to Criswell.
Criswell is the one who made misguided claims of liberalism against my seminary, Southwestern. T.B. Maston was for a short time my teacher and I would hope friend. I have great admiration for him. I heard him express his disappointment that some of his former ethics students were supporters of the Conservative Resurgence which he opposed.
David Rogers, thanks for the correction. Of course I knew his name was Maston and Matson. I have a friend named Matson and I did not proof read my post.
Joe,
I will save a longer answer for another time.
But, in many cases, I think it is for the same reason many people out in the country keep going to the same church next to the cemetery their parents and grandparents are buried in, even though they don’t really see eye to eye with the current pastor (or board of elders).
In the last sentence I am trying to say Maston and NOT Matson. I wish there was some way to edit our posts after them have been sent.
David,
That well could be the case. I’ve always invisioned it being similar to the Sith from the Star Wars Univerise–waiting around til they can take their revenge. Of course, I watch just a wee but too much television.
Ron,
As a moderator here, I have the privilege to go back and edit my comments, which I do from time to time (just to correct grammar, typos, etc.). I’m not going to give you the password to do that, though. Learn to live with it.
This has been interesting. I’m heading out to the adjacent county. I’ll check back in this afternoon.
Do the Psalms funnel the substance of God’s speaking into a written text (to which plenary inspiration is concerned)? Or do they speak of God communicating to humans in a broader context than words on paper or parchment?
We both affirm (I think it is safe to say) that God has revealed himself to us through human history, experience, and oral tradition … and somewhere along the way that which had been revealed was transferred into written form.
And we both know that there never was a master written “autograph,” and thus inerrancy is ultimately an exercise of the imagination.
In addition, the Bible does not claim textual perfection for itself. The closest the Bible comes to spelling out its own authority is 2 Timothy 3:16, which addressed acknowledged scripture to that point, and laid claim to limited authority (not perfection). It is from this that Baptists historically have not been inerrantists, but rather believers who understand the nature of scripture as “written” authority in issues of “faith and practice.”
As to the “accuracy” of the text, truth is not confined to textual perfection, as Christians prior to the late 19th century understood. By equating the truthfulness of scripture with textual perfection, we measure scripture by the standards of a modern, scientific mindset that falls far short of the historical context of truth of the biblical era.
And thus we make scripture, and the very revelation of God, much less than it really was and is.
Got to go to lunch. I’ll check in later, as well.
BT and David Rogers,
At the risk of being drawn into a potentially volatile discussion, but at the same time seeking to be exegetically correct, I would encourage you to do some word study on the term “perfect” found in Ps 19:7. It is used a lot as a proof text about the “perfection” of the scripture, but I don’t believe the term’s usage in scripture attests to that. For instance, the same term is applied to Noah’s character (Gen 6:9) and to Job (Job 1:1,8; 2:3). David claimed this term about himself (2 Sam 22:24; Ps 18:23), and strangely the term is also applied to Jacob (Gen 25:27). The same term is used of the Lord’s way (2 Sam 22:31, notice the close association with David’s claim about himself in v. 24), His knowledge (Job 37:16, notice the close association with Elihu’s claim about his own knowledge in 36:4), and God’s law (Ps 19:7).
Although I do believe in the absolute truth of scripture, I’m not sure all of the connotations of the term “perfect” usually associated with Ps 19:7 are actually intended by that text.
Question – The Chicago statement explicitly stated that its adherents did not have all the answers to the apparent contradicitons. There do appear to be some transcription errors, geneology discrepancies, and differences in the accounts in Kings vs. Chronicles, etc. So why do we say the Bible is without error when we acknowledge up front that we don’t have all the answers to the discrepancies?
The “inerrancy” declaration becomes tautological, it would appear, by saying, in essence, that anything that looks like an error isn’t really an error, but is instead a mystery yet to be solved. Seems to me to be an a priori faith statement rather than an evidence-based decision, particularly when we apply it exclusively to the autographs. Since we no longer have the autographs, we are making a faith statement about things that no longer exist. By limiting our statement to the autographs, we are in essence saying that anything that is not an autograph is necessarily “errant” in one respect or another.
We are having an argument about documents that no longer exist. And both sides feel that such an argument is substantive and meaningful.
What I see as an observer is that we make the statement the hill worth dying on rather than the Bible itself. I appreciate Bruce’s desire to speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible remains silent, but this is a standard I’m guessing he would not apply elsewhere. For instance, the Bible makes no claims with regard to the Trinity (since it doesn’t use that term) or even the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ using the criteria he espouses in his posts. Yet I would daresay he believes in both, even though they are “extrabiblical” concepts. That leads us to David’s reply where he shows how interpretation leads us to conclusions that we phrase in language compatible with out times, even if they do not appear to be fully explicated in any one individual passage of scripture.
Do you note in all this how little time is actually paid to the object under question? In my experience, I’ve found those who read the Bible the least have some of the firmest opinions about ancillary statements while those immersed in the Word not only understand the existence of apparent contradictions, but account for them in their understanding of what the Bible means and intends. I think anyone who has not read the Bible cover to cover multiple times should be excused from the discussion since they have so little experience with the actual Bible versus commentators on the Bible. I’m not saying they can’t have their opinions. Certainly they can. But then I have an opinion about the Yankees as a baseball team that is completely uninformed by never watching any of their games in the last decade or so. Is my opinion going to have any weight? Should it?
So why do we say the Bible is without error when we acknowledge up front that we don’t have all the answers to the discrepancies?
Not having an answer to a question does not prove there is not an answer. I don’t know the answer to “How does a combustion engine work?” but I know for a fact that when I go crank my car this afternoon, if it is functioning properly, that it’s going to get me home. Someone else, however, DOES have the answer to “How a combustion engine works?” The only people who have themselves worked into a lather about inerrancy and vehemently asset that “It just CAN’T be true. It just CAN’T1!!” are those theological moderates/liberals who thanfully lost the CR and were treated with much more kindness than was necessary.
I want to say a little something about lunch before getting back to Scripture.
Today was nothing to write home about but yesterday had a great bq sandwich at a place called Henry’s. Almost as Good as Bridges BBQ in Shelby, NC, place long time frequented by Billy Graham when he would drive over from Montreat to Charlotte. I think his last appearance was Jan 7 or so 2001.
Jesse Helms also liked the place.
Great potato soup at Bill Glenn’s Mtn grill in Dogtown Alabama just outside the home of Bobby Welch if any of you want to take about 15 minutes off 59 midway between Chattanooga and Bham some Friday or Saturday, the only two days open.
Narrow window I know, but worth the exit if you are hungry passing those days.
A Jewish friend of mine liked the BBQ in Kansas City. He did a documentary on the Chicago Ten couple years ago that made a big deal at Sundance.
I don’t see him often, every ten years or so, but I do remember him talking about Kansas City.
Speaking of Jews, great take on the Gospel in the 80′s movie Revolt of Job
I am not going to be able to talk on the same level many of you are, however, the issue regarding the B-I-B-L-E and its validity can go too far sometimes. If I look back on the day that grace brought to me saving faith, I would have to say that my belief in scriptural validity began at that point. Since then, and from faith to faith, my trust in God that His word is without error was substantiated as I implemented the truth of what His word said every day since then. I would have a difficult time dissecting and tagging every part of the topic in order to try to be as accurate as I possibly could. Maybe one day God will give me the grace to try to see every part. Right now, I am trying to see the truth of the word that I am able to understand and apply it in my life.
Jesus spoke with authority which means he never referenced or quoted anyone to support the truth He spoke. Most of the statements here seem to be supported by references or quotes and not personal matter-of-fact experience. The average layman would come away from this blog today with more faith in the word and not in the Inspirator of the word.
Question: Would we teach our people everything about the proof of the word or would we teach someone how to prove the word? Or both?
Please forgive me for my ignorance about this subject and I pray that my comments are not offensive.
Bruce
David, you made the following statement.
“I agree with you here, and with much of what you say in your last comment. And yet, we have people right here, in this very comment thread (Stephen Fox and Bruce Gourley), and in the comment thread before this one (Gene Scarborough), who appear (if I am understanding them correctly) to be arguing against both inerrancy and sola scriptura, and yet, who were considered (at least, by many) to be part of “mainstream” Baptist life before the CR. Are you suggesting that it would have been a good thing to just let these two different visions of biblical authority mutually coexist within Southern Baptist life?” – David Rogers
I am not sure exactly what the term “stawman” I often here on the blogs means but I think this might be one. I was fairly active in SBC life before the PCR. No disrespect intended but I had never heard of Bruce Gourley, Stephen Fox or Gene Scarborough until recently. I do not know what you mean by mainstream Baptist life before the CR but I think I would have heard of them. You can’t take any statement by any Southern Baptist and say that represents mainstream Baptist thought. I would prefer to use names like Baker James Cauthon, President of our larges entity the FMB, or Robert Naylor, President of our largest seminary or Roy Fish, our leading evangelism professor. These men are good representatives of mainstream Southern Baptist life before the PCR. I have no problem with them. Do you?
Following your reasoning I could say since Ron Wilson, Jerry Corbaley and Tom Hatley are definitely part of mainstream PCR life that you believe it is a good thing that their vision of liberalism of our missionaries should exist within Southern Baptist Life. In fact that is what you and others allow to happen when you do not speak up against it.
I could say that since Bill Hancock, Owen Collins, Coy Privette were considered to be part of mainstream PCR life means it is a good thing to let their moral standards exist within Sothern Baptist Life.
Both sides can play that game but it proves nothing.
PCR represents pseudo-conservative resurgence.
Again I meant strawman. I guess I will have to learn to live with not being trusted with the password. My ego will survive even though people know how bad my typing skills are.
Ron,
Fair enough. Your point here is actually a good illustration of the need to be more precise in our language, in order to avoid being misunderstood, the very sort of thing that led to statements such as the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
What I meant to say was that the ideas and line of thought represented by Bruce, Stephen, and Gene here on these comments is representative of some of the folks who used to be considered “mainstream” in Southern Baptist life. No doubt, there are others who would not agree with them—-some who supported the CR, and others who did not–who we might also be able to call “mainstream.” And yet, people holding to the views espoused here by Bruce, Stephen, and Gene, at one time exercised a whole lot more influence in the SBC than they do now. Would you not agree this is the case?
You know that I have also spoken out against certain positions taken recently by the IMB BoT, and the underlying line of thought behind them. So, I agree that this cuts both ways. But, that is a subject for a different post.
Kevin,
Fair enough, to you too. I think you would agree that the argument for the biblical support of inerrancy does not hinge on a precise definition of the term “perfection,” though, right?
Joe,
I think the God who inspired the inerrant, infallible Bible would want us to treat everyone–whether liberal, moderate, conservative, or fundamentalist–with kindness, don’t you think?
Gentlemen:
I agree with David Rogers in comment #40
I agree with Rick Presley in comment #41
I agree with the Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics and the Chicago Statement on Hermeneutics but I have to admit I have not looked at them in a while and I don’t have “top of mind awareness” on exactly what they say.
The only thing that might be hanging us up is the exact way we are using the English language term “literal” as each of us frames our argumentation.
Stephen,
I saw a documentary (at least bits and pieces of it) on TV (I think it was the Food Channel, or something like that) the other day about BBQ from 4 leading BBQ producing places: Texas, KC, Memphis, and NC.
Out of a supposedly neutral jury of about 150 people or so (if I remember correctly), Memphis won, hands down, against all the competition. NC came in last place.
“The average layman would come away from this blog today with more faith in the word and not in the Inspirator of the word.”
The only reason the “word” matters is because it is our means of knowing the one who gave it. I think it is a meaningless distinction.
Common assertions about inerrantists:
*care more about the word than the one who gave the word
*use our belief in inerrancy to control those who disagree – some sort of power maneuver. (ie – not a sincere belief, but politically motivated)
I think these do not reveal the heart of or the actual beliefs of inerrantists, but are actually fictions created by the opponents of the views – strawmen if you will.
I go to the word because I believe it reveals the Savior – regardless of the accusations thrown by the opponents of inerrancy. I trust the Word because it accurately reveals the Lord of the Word.
When the truthfulness of the Word is denigrated or questioned, I react because of my faith in Christ – which is founded by what is revealed.
It is a common debate tactic to try to define your opponent’s position according to your terms so that you can demonize the beliefs. It is not a fair tactic.
If someone wishes to argue that the Bible is not absolutely true – fine. But to say that inerrantists have more faith in the Word than the Lord is an assertion both untrue and unfair.
Bruce Gourley said:
“Do the Psalms funnel the substance of God’s speaking into a written text (to which plenary inspiration is concerned)? Or do they speak of God communicating to humans in a broader context than words on paper or parchment?
We both affirm (I think it is safe to say) that God has revealed himself to us through human history, experience, and oral tradition … and somewhere along the way that which had been revealed was transferred into written form.”
I say: If this is all you can affirm about divine revelation, and biblical inspiration, we split ways a long time before we get to the question of inerrancy or sola scriptura. Would you agree that Jesus, and the Apostles, believed that actual written texts were divinely inspired, and not merely a loose reflection of someone, some time, being inspired?
Bruce Harp,
What Dave Miller said.
The whole discussion about inerrancy is necessarily confused by interchanging the terms Bible and autographs. We have Bibles. They aren’t inerrant. We think the autographs were inerrant, but we don’t have them. We think we have mostly inerrant Bibles.
Here’s a question: How do we know we got all the autographs? And how do we know that what we got were all based upon autographs?
My problem with the inerrancy discussion is that inerrancy doesn’t seem to get us anywhere, or achieve anything. We think there are flaws (albeit minor) in the transmission and translation, and we know there are flaws in our understanding. Belief in inerrancy doesn’t get us unanimity on soteriology, gender issues, eshcatology, charismaticism, the use of the Law, baptism, communion, you name it.
The other problem I have is that people always elevate their interpretation to inerrant status. You don’t believe as I do? You don’t believe the bible. Look over the SBC blogosphere at all, and you will see that term over, and over again.
For example, I really don’t believe 2-3 million Jews left Egypt during the Exodus. I know that’s what my “bible” says, but is that what the autographs say? It is my understanding that the word translated “thousand” can in some contexts be understood as clan or some other type of unit. But, and I can see it coming, try explaining such a position and you get “you just don’t believe the bible.”
Bruce Gourley also said:
“And we both know that there never was a master written ‘autograph,’ and thus inerrancy is ultimately an exercise of the imagination.”
I say: Do you mean an original autograph of the entire text of the 66 books of the Protestant canon? If so, of course not.
But, each book of the Bible was written down, as the original author was inspired by God to write what he/she (given the remote possibility some small section may have been written by a woman) wrote. That text, before it was copied, and distributed, did actually exist. And, thanks to textual criticism, we have a pretty good idea what it actually said.
Russell Dilday and Dan Vestal would not have any problems at all, nor for that matter Jimmy Allen, Keith Parks and Carolyn Weatherford with most of what DAvid Miller says about the Word of God leading to the Saviour.
You are now looking backward through rose colored glasses at what happenned in the 80′s.
The Bible was being studied in the academy; an institution of higher education.
Pressler and Patterson did a sinister thing and that was take things out of context, out of a framework where students were challenged to look at things from many points of view, and made scoundrels out of gifted folks who used their intelligience to train the next round of leadership for the Baptist denomination.
The leaderhsip flocked toward Jerry Falwell and through Richard Land to Karl Rove.
No pretty way to say it.
Folks at home got confused cause they were told people were mocking the Bible.
It was an evil thing what happenned.
Ron West has vouched for Maston.
Hordes of Christ honoring , Bible Believing, whatever shibboleth you want to use can vouch for all the others including Bill Leonard, Lolley, Cecil Sherman, Charles Kimball on and on the Falwellites and James Dobson devotees replaced.
All the above folks named and replaced had high regard for the concept of Sola Scriptura.
David R:
You said to Joe B:”Joe,
I think the God who inspired the inerrant, infallible Bible would want us to treat everyone–whether liberal, moderate, conservative, or fundamentalist–with kindness, don’t you think?”
I am really curious as to Joe B’s answer to your simple question.
David M:
I think that one word innerrancy caused more division in the SBC than the word liberal ever did.
It was a great tactic to takeover the SBC and it worked. It pitted people against each other that never should have been pitted against each other. But the SBC that I grew up with is gone in more ways than one and those in charge don’t even realize it. Many have not yet left the SBC who still can not force themselves to leave after lifetimes committed to the cause of the SBC. But we will probably leave someday not that those remaining will even care.
Bill,
My answer to your comment is the same I gave to Bruce Gourley in comment #39 (especially the last two paragraphs).
David
I don’t mean that they didn’t deserve any kindness. My comment was intended to contrast the assertion I have heard that the moderates/liberals were treated so horribly by the evil, black-hearted conservatives.
Eesh – I log off last night with 30 comments – I do my daily activities, get my chores done, check in this afternoon and vio la! 85 comments. Pardon me while I read up on what has been going on – and will make selected comments after I have had time to digest some of it.
Rob
Rick:
You offer some excellent points. And for the record, I believe in many things that are not strictly biblical (such as the Trinity, as you note), but do not insist that belief in extra-biblical tenets is a critical faith issue. I’m less concerned with whether a given word is found in (English) scripture than I am with the concept; for example, the Trinity as a concept is certainly within scripture, while inerrancy as a concept is absent.
Also for the record, the word “hell” is not actually in scripture, nor is the contemporary concept of “hell”; it is an English word from the Middle Ages (with possible Norse pagan origins) that was inserted in English translations and replaced (and redefined) Hebrew and Greek concepts of the afterlife with the imagery of Dante. Hence, belief in the later, extra-biblical English construct of “hell” is not a critical faith issue. [Go ahead ... flame me.
]
Joe:
The answer to the discrepancies in scripture is simple: they are discrepancies. Textual perfection is foreign to scripture’s understanding of itself.
Ron and Dave:
Prior to recent decades, most Southern Baptists (the “mainstream” folks) did not embrace inerrancy. And the odds are, many if not most of the folks in your own churches this very day do not embrace inerrancy (and would wonder why the allegiance to an imaginary concept).
David said:
“If this is all you can affirm about divine revelation, and biblical inspiration, we split ways a long time before we get to the question of inerrancy or sola scriptura. Would you agree that Jesus, and the Apostles, believed that actual written texts were divinely inspired, and not merely a loose reflection of someone, some time, being inspired?”
I say:
Do you not believe that the biblical text followed and was a written record of the (just as divinely inspired, perhaps even more?) oral tradition, itself handed down from the events of God revealing himself to humankind in human history and experience?
Luke, for example, clearly tells us this is indeed how his Gospel came about. He was one of “many” first century contemporaries relying on oral tradition about Jesus and “drawing up an account” based on the oral traditions of things that had already happened.
To say that there were no liberals in the SBC before the CR took place is either dishonesty, ignorance, or both. There were people in the SBC back then who taught that there were errors in the Bible. There were people in the SBC who taught universalism. There were people in the SBC back then who taught that the Jews didnt need salvation. There were people in SBC seminaries back then who called God,”Our Mother, who art in Heaven.” One of my profs in seminary told me that there was not one OT prof at New Orleans Seminary, at the time he taught there, who denied evolution. They all believed in evolution.
We had SBC leaders who believed abortion/choice. We had SBC leaders who taught that there was a Satan in the OT, and the Devil in the NT; that they were two separate beings. We had SBC leaders who believed in women pastorettes. We had people in the SBC who denied that certain miracles happened. We had preachers in the SBC who said it wasnt important whether you believed in the virgin birth, or not. And, they would also say that it wasnt that important to believe in a literal, physical resurrection of Jesus. And, the list goes on and on and on.
So, please dont try to tell me that liberalism wasnt in the SBC. It not only was, but the liberals/moderates had control of the SBC before 1979. It was real. And, thank God for the CR.
David
Dave & David,
Thanks for responding. I just want to say that my comment was not directed to anyone in particular nor do I think every layman would conclude the same way. However, when arguing creation vs. evolution we have similar comments as inerrancy. We argue a truth with facts related to our belief, not real facts to some, nevertheless, facts without facts. Some may say otherwise. The only support from what is being said from a knowledge base is based upon how the Word becomes real from us putting its truth in application. My belief that scripture is infallible should be placed upon its application in my personal life. Since the requirement of Word’s application is the faith we have been given, we have to conclude that the Word is true based upon our own application and the results we receive of it. Once I have established an amount of truth that would clearly confirm all of scripture to me, I have established an undeniable belief in the Word for every application. Even the places where I cannot understand, I understand that they will be available to me for use as I grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I am driven to continue to live by the Word and through the truth of the Word. I have not had the drive to prove it to anyone else other than teaching its truths to live by. Maybe my desire is not as strong in proving it to others as it is to me. I hope I have not erred to anyone in my previous comment and apologize if I did.
Bruce
David,
First of all, rejecting inerrancy is not the same thing as liberalism; inerrancy itself is a modern, rationalist construct.
And yes, there were some liberals in SBC life previously. And there were some fundamentalists, who were just as much heretics (or more so) as the “liberals” they despised.
And by the way, Baptists in the 17th and 18th centuries were considered liberals and even heretics by most other Christians, because they rejected much of the prevailing orthodoxy of the day (and were beaten, whipped, jailed and in many other ways persecuted mightily by Christian theocrats, because of their heresies).
And, oh, how orthodoxy changes radically from generation to generation!
Bruce,
Although God may well have inspired some to say what they said orally (and certainly, He did), I believe that He also inspired those who wrote down what they said to write it down in just the way He wanted them to write it down (using each one’s unique personality, writing style, etc.). I also believe something is either inspired by God, or it is not. There are no texts/oral traditions/etc. that are “somewhat inspired,” or any that are any more or any less inspired than other texts/oral traditions/etc. that are also inspired.
Volfan David Worley,
I, as a fellow defender of inerrancy and sola scriptura, have been trying, with much difficulty, to keep this comment stream on the topic of inerrancy and sola scriptura, and not let it digress into an argument about the Conservative Resurgence of the SBC. And then, you come along, as a fellow inerrantist, and try to bring it back there again.
Oh well, I will punt to Rob, the author of the post, on this one.
David said:
“Although God may well have inspired some to say what they said orally (and certainly, He did), I believe that He also inspired those who wrote down what they said to write it down in just the way He wanted them to write it down (using each one’s unique personality, writing style, etc.). I also believe something is either inspired by God, or it is not. There are no texts/oral traditions/etc. that are “somewhat inspired,” or any that are any more or any less inspired than other texts/oral traditions/etc. that are also inspired.”
I say:
That’s a fine opinion, and quite rationalistic, befitting our modern scientific era (whereas the early church fathers down through the 16th century Protestant Reformers did not hold such a view; they viewed some canonical scripture as less inspired than others). And while your stated view of inspiration is not that which scripture says of itself, it is true that we are left to our own devices to wrestle with what “inspiration” actually means.
Whether you call hell “hades” or “gehenna” or “Iowa,” you still have to draw out the implications of such phrases as “smoke of their torment,” “their fire is not quenched,” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Besides, Dante describes hell as getting colder the deeper you get. If that were the case the Lions would have won the Super Bowl by now.
On an individual basis, interpretation can be subjective, but if you hold to errancy, the Word of God becomes subjective, not just an individual’s particular interpretation. In which case there is no reason even to engage in debate.
Paul did not put God in a box by writing Romans. The Bible does not put God in a box. Inerrancy does not put God in a box. If the Bible is not God-breathed, we have no reason for reading it or trusting it. If it is God-breathed we have no reason for doubting inerrancy.
Agreed David (#96)
Right now I am attempting to formulate a further response for clarification. However, the purpose of this post was not to fight the battle of the SBC all over again. Granted, my post “picked a fight” as it were over some of the same ground. However I am posting some further guides toward discussion of this post:
1) Argumentum ad hominem (circumstantial = aka “the Genetic fallacy = aka ‘guilt by association’) will no longer be acceptable. We have some very learned folks on this thread that know very well what I am talking about here. Stick to the subject, and don’t throw in “since the majority of this set of folks were also this, so therefore they are this as well.” If you resort to such, I don’t care how many initials are behind your name or how many articles you have written – it is a weak-kneed stupid argument done because nothing else will do. The hammer will be swift and unmerciful.
2)If all you have to talk about is the CR and how terrible and tragic it was – cease. Battle over. Move on. Let God sort it out. He will take care of His business, so leave His business alone and live on in the light He has given you. This also would include those who want to step into defense of the CR. I think if everybody ceases (or preferably goes and deals with whatever issues behind closed doors or private emails) that is the right thing to do.
Okay – can we move on with discussion about the post?
Rob
Andrew:
There is no such thing as an inerrant manuscript: assuming you are a preacher, you preach from an errant Bible each and every Sunday.
I wrote the Iowa thing for you, Dave
.
David,
I agree 100% with what you have said. I hope my statements did not take away from that.
I just didn’t believe the creation account or the flood because the Bible is infallible. I believed it because of the life transformation that took place by grace through saving faith in me. To my common thinking came uncommon truth by the Spirit and that is why I believe what we believe about scripture now. Liberal thinking is either a double-minded approach or simply the non-use of faith toward the truths of scripture, both of which are wrong.
I was taught inerrancy more than I was told to put truth into action and began to put more of a focus on the Word than on God. That is where my other comments came from. I hope you understand that some misuse this topic and can cause more of a problem than a resolution when defense is placed in front of application. I think we must teach both at the same time.
Belief in inerrancy does not equal belief in young earth creationism.
Belief in inerrancy does not equal belief in complementarianism.
Belief in inerrancy does not equal belief in cessationism.
The bibles we hold in our hands, thump on the pulpit, or gather dust on our coffee tables are trustworthy, but they are not inerrant*.
*(unless you are a KJVonlyist)
Bruce,
I only preach de vez en cuando and then it’s in español. But even still, the original manuscripts were indeed free from error, and the ones we use today are so close that it is a hermeneutical crime to declare the Bible as “errant.”
I had a professor tell me that I couldn’t say it was 74 degrees outside because that was not accurate–there’s always another decimal place of accuracy out there, even if I don’t have the tools to measure it. Those who refuse to accept inerrancy (Chicago Statement) follow this logic and then say things like, “You can’t say for certain that its warm enough to go swimming because your thermometer is errant.”
Then again, I may tell my wife that I can’t make pizza this weekend because I can’t say for certain that the oven is warmed up to 450 degrees.
For the King James-only crowd, I offer this nugget (yes, it is relevant to the question of biblical inspiration):
http://www.gracebaptistcollege.com/greek.html
Bruce Harp,
No problemo. I’m tracking with you. I just liked what Dave M. had to say, too.
By the way, I think the following translation is probably correct:
John 5:39-40 (NIV)
“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
Bruce Gourley,
RE: comment #105
Can we say “Red Herring”?
Andrew:
The standard inerrantist argument is that if one admits there is one error in the biblical text, the Bible is not true. To say that the Bible you preach from is “close enough” to perfect to be acceptable is a double standard: it is less then perfect, and therefore, errant.
Let me throw in a term for discussion – I thought about inserting it into the original article – but seeing many fellow rationalists and existentialists on board brought the term to mind, esp. since there is a stated desire for “the Bible to be the Bible”:
Selective Metaphysical Biblicist
You see this is the inverse of the previous term (yet actually derives from the same starting place). We have some folks who accept the uniqueness of Jesus who they claim is the Son of God (often from the starting point of a personal experience or feeling) – they may often accept the resurrection (with the exception of certain fellows at Mercer it seems) – both of these are examples of “Metaphysics.” No one alive today have actually seen with our eyes the Resurrected Christ. Neither do we know if He really did all the things said in the Gospels – we were not there. We accept by faith (which Romans 10:17 says comes from “hearing the word of Christ”) His existence and reality. We cannot pierce the a priori world by any a posteriori means. We have the Scriptures which is the anchor which shares with us the true Jesus, whom we receive by that same faith by grace. That is Metaphysical, and we accept it by faith because “…the Bible tells me so” like all good Baptists learned in Sunday School.
Now there are many who claim an experience with a Jesus (existentially) outside of the Scriptures. Joseph Smith claimed one such. Echart Tolle claimed another such. Shirley McClain claimed another such. Charles Taze Russel did too. The list is innumerable. Their claim allowed them to be “beyond-Biblical.” That is they relied upon their so called “experience” of Jesus to dictate prescriptions for their lives outside of any biblical prescription – in fact no biblical presecription was necessary. Some of them are selective in their “Biblical Metaphysics” such as Pannenburg. Others reject partially or totally any truth claims that the Bible has about any subject beyond the possibility of God’s existence and Jesus and His uniqueness. We are left to figure it out then on our own.
Question: Once you accept a Biblical Metaphysical claim, on what basis do reject other biblical claims as being “unbiblical” or better yet “unreasonable.” They are all Metaphysical and outside any reference of being “reasonable.” On what objective basis do you accept the Son of God and His cross-work of Atonement (being a metaphysical, transcendent act outside of all Human reasoning or rationalization) and then reject equally the Virgin Birth as unreasonable? Unless the means in which you believe the first is extra-biblical? And if so, are any of the other claims of Christ and His followers subject to the same set of rationalizations such as “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life – no one comes to the Father except Through Me.”
The problem with the Rational Jesus is that everybody can have a different one, often made in the image of the person whose point of view is being considered. Is the Jesus of Joseph Smith the same as the Jesus of the Bible? The answer would be a thunderous “no.” So we are confronted with Aristotle’s laws of logic and the law of non-contradiction: the two views cannot both be right – they are not a paradox but a conundrum – they indeed are a contradiction. There are not 6 billion different living Bibles – there is only one – like there is only one Jesus whom I believe would much prefer to be known by the way He presented and reveals Himself through Scripture rather than how we would prefer to construct Him “in our image”.
Rob
Belief in errancy does equal heresy.
Belief in errancy does equal liberal/moderate theology.
Belief in errancy does make a person unqualified for any position in an SBC Seminary, church, or mission organization.
The bibles we hold in our hands, thump on the pulpit, or gather dust on our coffee tables are trustworthy, and they are inerrant*.
*As defined by the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
Gourley said “Inerrancy is not a modern rewording of a historic belief in the truthfulness of the Bible; rather, it is a modern, scientific (as David rightly notes) view of the Bible which makes the Bible something that Christians historically never tried to make it: i.e., literal, textual perfection in all facets of composition and knowledge(in order, as David seems to indicate, to position the Bible as the ultimate authority upon the playing field of modern truth).
” (bold mine)
Aside from maybe the nuances of “literal” and “scientific” [I'm not sure what is meant by these words], I don’t think this is an accurate statement in the light of history.
The New Hampshire Baptist Confession [1833] states this under the section I. Of the Scriptures:
“We believe that the Holy Bible…is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction…the supreme standard by which all…opinions should be tried” (bold mine)
Notice that this statement does not say the Bible “contains” a perfect treasure, but actually “is” a perfect treasure.
It is also worth nothing what the 1689 Confession states [Ch. 1:5]:
“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God…” (bold mine)
Joe – did you hear what I said? (Reference 99)
Rob
Rob,
It appears you are referring to my alternative #2 in my comment #33: “an ‘anything goes,’ hocus pocus, ‘blind leap of faith’ epistemology.” It’s basically what the hymn “He Lives” expresses: “You ask me how I know He lives: He lives within my heart.” And, what the Mormons are talking about, when they talk about “a burning in the bosom.”
I agree this is just as much a problem as “selective epistemological rationalism” (alternative #3). Then, we still have alternative #1 to deal with. But, perhaps, we should leave that for a separate post…
Kevin Peacock, you said the following to me and to David Rogers:
“At the risk of being drawn into a potentially volatile discussion, but at the same time seeking to be exegetically correct, I would encourage you to do some word study on the term ‘perfect’ found in Ps 19:7. It is used a lot as a proof text about the ‘perfection’ of the scripture, but I don’t believe the term’s usage in scripture attests to that. For instance, the same term is applied to Noah’s character (Gen 6:9) and to Job (Job 1:1,8; 2:3). David claimed this term about himself (2 Sam 22:24; Ps 18:23), and strangely the term is also applied to Jacob (Gen 25:27). The same term is used of the Lord’s way (2 Sam 22:31, notice the close association with David’s claim about himself in v. 24), His knowledge (Job 37:16, notice the close association with Elihu’s claim about his own knowledge in 36:4), and God’s law (Ps 19:7). Although I do believe in the absolute truth of scripture, I’m not sure all of the connotations of the term ‘perfect’ usually associated with Ps 19:7 are actually intended by that text.”
Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (page 867) has this description for the word in question:
“(1) perfect, complete, Psalm 19:[7]; Job 36:4; 37:16.
(2) whole, entire, Lev. 3:9; 25:30; Josh. 10:13.
(3) perfect, whole, sound—(a) free from blemishes, used of victims, Ex. 12:5; Lev. 1:3.—(b) safe, secure, used of men, Prov. 1:12.—(c) whole, upright in conduct, blameless, Gen. 6:9; 17:1.”
Thus, the word indeed can be used to describe the Torah as 100% without error in Psalm 19:7. I think you would agree that God’s knowledge is “perfect” as described in Genesis 37:16. In regard to Elihu’s knowledge in Job 36:4, there is some question about whether Elihu referred to himself or to God when he used the word (especially when verse 4 is seen in context with verse 5:
“For truly my words are not false; one who is perfect in knowledge is with you. Behold, God is mighty but does not despise any; He is mighty in strength of understanding.” (NASB)
Whether verse 4 refers to Elihu’s knowledge or not, Job 37:16 obviously describes God’s knowledge as perfect in the sense that He has exhaustive knowledge of every detail of the past, present, and future:
“Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds, the wonders of one perfect in knowledge?”
Bruce,
You say “To say that the Bible you preach from is “close enough” to perfect to be acceptable is a double standard: it is less then perfect, and therefore, errant.” Emphasis mine.
Are you saying that the Bible is not acceptable? What do you mean by “biblical text.” I am saying that if there is ONE error in the autographs, the Bible is worthless.
Besides, I made it perfectly clear that I was citing the Chicago Statement for the definition of inerrancy. Don’t argue semantics when you know what I mean. I won’t argue apples and oranges with you if your going to claim that oranges are red.
Oops, that should be Job 37:16 rather than Genesis 37:16.
David Rogers,
I really threw a coworker off once when I said, “Yes, I did pray about it and the Holy Spirit convicted me that it [the book of Mormon] was false.” The intern from Utah was a little shocked by that. I’m terrible.
If a man who looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger and says, “I believe in exercise” and Paul Prudhomme says, “I believe in exercise” I would base my Belief on actual visible results. My belief of inerrancy is based upon the same principle. Some want to place inerrancy on a human level of “perfection” and that is not the right criteria. Inerrancy should be based upon the spiritual effect it has upon an individual. No man can change on his own, the change comes from within and, then, by the Spirit of God. We can place it in our Statement of Faith, and should, but, not everyone will live it and will make the Word look errant.
As a non-Catholic, I’m not a big fan of the idea of a magisterium, whether it is the pope, a council, or the authors of the Chicago Statement. Our bibles are English translations of Greek and Hebrew copies of copies of copies of the original manuscripts. The Chicago Statement essentially says that the Bible is inerrant except for all those things that everyone would normally call an error. We’ll just call them discrepancies and say it is a mystery.
What about the texts like the angel stirring the water so the next person entering gets healed? Inerrant truth, or errant addition to the text?
Bill,
I just got through telling Rob that maybe we should leave the alternative of letting a Magisterium interpret the text for us for another post.
In any case, no one is claiming the Chicago Statement is inerrant. Just, it seems to be a good way to express what we are trying to say.
You say: “The Chicago Statement essentially says that the Bible is inerrant except for all those things that everyone would normally call an error. We’ll just call them discrepancies and say it is a mystery.”
I disagree. Maybe the sky is blue. Maybe the sky is green.
In any case, until someone shows me why I should believe the part about the angel stirring the water is an interpolation, I believe that an angel really came down and stirred the water. That is, indeed, a good case in point.
Oh yeah, John 5:4 is not in the best manuscripts, is it?
http://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/the-case-of-the-missing-verse-john-54/
I could be wrong but I think the folks here (myself included) who are complaining about inerrancy are not arguing for errancy. We just object a particular word being used as a litmus test for our level of biblical loyalty (or even our salvation: read the comments). The word inerrant has become a shibboleth in the SBC. A word that dies the death of a thousand qualifications. You can say you believe the bible, that you think it is trustworthy, infallible, etc. But if you won’t say inerrant, you’re out of the club.
Someone can say: Genealogical errors don’t destroy my confidence in the scripture. I don’t think errors between two different accounts of the number of people killed in a battle harm my belief in the resurrection. And then someone comes along and says “that’s ok, we don’t call those errors, just discrepancies.” I’m sorry but that’s just silly.
We just object a particular word being used as a litmus test for our level of biblical loyalty (or even our salvation: read the comments)
In contrast, I’m quite comfortable with it being used for just those very things.
David: I’ve never been keen on the term “best manuscripts” but it does illustrate my point. Does the autograph have the story about the angel? if so, then bibles without it do not have the complete scripture. If not, the bibles that have it have a false story.
My answer: I don’t know. Who cares? The story does not affect any major doctrine we hold to be important.
I’m not trying to dominate this thread. I’m just waiting for my daughter to get out of class so I can take her home.
In contrast, I’m quite comfortable with it being used for just those very things.
I’m curious, does anyone want to join Joe in declaring non-inerrantists as non-Christians? Anyone at all?
Bill,
My point is that, until someone shows me why it, with all likelihood was NOT included in the original autograph, I choose to believe it, and build the house of my life and belief system upon it. However, once it becomes clear that it was, in all likelihood, a later interpolation, I should not build the house of my life and belief system upon it.
It is true that, at a certain time in history, most people believed that verse was probably in the original autographs, and some maybe even based their belief system upon it.
When we get to heaven, I don’t think God is going to judge those people, or hold them responsible, for that mistaken belief.
However, if I, because of my own preferences, or personal criteria, decide not to accept, and practice in my own life one jot or one tittle of what I understand God’s revelation to me to really say, I believe I will be held responsible for that on the Day of Judgment.
I mentioned ad hominem attacks and straw men earlier, and someone asked for a definition. An ad hominem attack does not deal with the logic of the argument; rather, it is an attack on the character of the person making the argument in an attempt to discredit the argument. A straw man argument misrepresents the argument of an opponent so that the opponent may be more easily defeated. We frequently see ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments in the blogging world. We should try to avoid them. When we rehearse history and deal with personalities involved in the conservative resurgence, we have usually allowed our conversation to devolve into ad hominem attacks on the character of the people on either side. Both sides admit that theological differences exist, and I am interested in discussing the theological differences, not the character of our opponents in the present or the past.
I would like to try to interact a bit with some of the statements made so far and see if I can draw out some implications without creating any straw men.
First, Bill in comment #119 said,
“The Chicago Statement essentially says that the Bible is inerrant except for all those things that everyone would normally call an error. We’ll just call them discrepancies and say it is a mystery.”
I respectfully disagree. The Chicago Statement says the following about errors:
“Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives. . . . WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. . . . WE DENY that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible. . . . Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.”
If any of you saved copies of the moderate publication, SBC Today, you can find an article I wrote in the July, 1988, edition entitled “Pastor Refutes Sullivan.” I refuted every claim of error made by Clayton Sullivan in the previous edition of SBC Today in his article “Problems with Inerrancy.”
Many people who deny inerrancy mention alleged errors in technical precision. Here’s an example: Is the Bible really in error when it describes the sun setting (Gen. 15:17)? If we speak with technical precision, we have to say that the sun does not set. Is it really an error for us to discuss sunsets today? Should we instead discuss the earth’s rotation as it orbits the sun? Obviously, to discuss a sunset is not an error.
The unresolved errors in our current translations hopefully will be resolved by textual criticism, but those unresolved errors do not affect the inerrancy of the original documents. The Chicago Statement is correct in what it says about inerrancy.
I’ll try to interact with some other comments on this thread. It’s hard to keep up.
BT,
We’ve been through this kind of argument before. Quoting from a lexicon is not the same thing as presenting biblical truth. Lexicographers are interpreters of the biblical data. The biblical data reveals that the same word used in Ps 19:7 is also used of people that we would all call far from “perfect.” To say that the term means one thing when referring to people and another when speaking of God’s word is a matter of interpretation, not biblical fact. The biblical evidence of the many uses of the adjective reveals that our standards of “perfection” may not have been what the biblical writer intended. The best way to do biblical word study is not to consult secondary authorities like a lexicon but to research every biblical instance of a term and inductively draw a conclusion.
By the way, I do not take Elihu’s teaching with the same authority as voices attested in the scripture as being authoritative. There is some question if he indeed “spoke what is right” like Job (42:7) or is to be considered more like the three friends.
My brothers–
I have not had time to read every comment—HOWEVER, I am sensing a great deal of Gnostic (special knowledge which lets you into God’s Kingdom) type discussion.
Here is my question which, I hope, will bring us back to some reality: What has become of the Holy Spirit in this discourse?
As best I know it, our religion is based on Father-Son-Holy Spirit, triune God, all aspects being equal. In this structure, Jesus, Himself, promised to send the Paraclete in his place to guide us always.
Most of this seems to be focused on “what was” rather than “what is.”
Now, here is another question: If the Holy Spirit has been sent and, I believe, is present, why do we have to focus so much on what was meant in the past? We insist, it seems, that nothing has changed. We are hide-bound to do as Jesus / Paul / Peter say in the NT.
Is there a possibility that the Holy Spirit is guiding me to say the things I say?
I can tell you honestly that what I have said and what I have asked IS what the Holy Spirit is guiding me to say. I ask God each time I write–to give me a word that speaks today rather than yesterday. Therefore, I personally belive I am guided by the living and breathing Holy Spirit to speak a prophetic word to you each day.
Here is how I define prophetic: A message of truth and reconciliation in our world today. It is a definition given by E. Clinton Gardner, Professor at Candler School of Theology at Emory. His definition turned me long ago from considering a “Prophet” as one who predicted the future into the accurate biblical description as given above.
It is based on the actual act of prophecy described in the OT Prophets. They were trying to give a word from God as they communicated with Him daily and perceived what was going on in Israel at the time!
Bill
Of course I acknowledge that inerrancy is not a salvific doctrine (please see comment 6). I assumed you meant that part of the comment to be tongue in cheek while the first part you intended as serious. Anyway, no, I can’t say someone isn’t saved if they don’t believe inerrancy. Wrong but not lost. However, I am very glad that it is used as a litmus test as you put it.
Kevin, you said:
“To say that the term means one thing when referring to people and another when speaking of God’s word is a matter of interpretation, not biblical fact.”
Would you agree that God is perfect in every characteristic? Hopefully, you agree with me that God is perfect in every way, including His knowledge. Job 37:16 describes His knowledge as being perfect. God cannot be less than perfect. Thus, if God cannot be less than perfect, the word must refer to 100 percent, unblemished perfection in Job 37:16. If the word refers to 100 percent, unblemished perfection in Job 37:16, then it can certainly mean the same thing in reference to His Torah in Psalm 19:7.
We insist, it seems, that nothing has changed. We are hide-bound to do as Jesus / Paul / Peter say in the NT.
Oh, the horror of it all. The very idea that we would be bound to obey scripture.
Is there a possibility that the Holy Spirit is guiding me to say the things I say?
Not if it contradicts scripture. Definitely not in the sense that the Holy Spirit guided the men who wrote the OT and NT.
Therefore, I personally belive I am guided by the living and breathing Holy Spirit to speak a prophetic word to you each day.
Um, heresy much? Did they teach you that at Emory?
Gene S. in comment #129, my comment in #47 is relevant to your comment:
“Inspiration is different from illumination. The Holy Spirit’s inspiration involved moving men to give God’s revelation: ‘For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ (2 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit’s illumination involves helping people understand the revelation received: ‘Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God’ (1 Corinthians 2:12). All the words in the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit. An author of a commentary on the Bible may have received illumination from the Holy Spirit. The words of the commentary, however, were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. The commentary is not the Word of God.”
Bill – a couple of comments I have about two posts (88 -122)
“For example, I really don’t believe 2-3 million Jews left Egypt during the Exodus. I know that’s what my “bible” says, but is that what the autographs say?”
Your words belay your problem when you state “belief.” On what basis of fact (not fiction, speculation, or will of the whim feeling) do you base your belief here on. The Torah (purported author Moshe) wrote of “600,000″ adult men (not including women or children) walking out at the Exodus (Exodus 12:37). That number also did not include a large number of Egyptian proselytes who also accompanied the Jewish people to the wilderness (38). This would extrapolate (according to the Talmud) to 3,000,000 people accompanying Mosche into the wilderness from Egypt. According to the law of the census (Parashas Ki Sasa – Exodus 30:11-16) heads were not counted, but items (such as coins) were counted to determine accurate census numbers. In this matter it would be difficult to under or over-count – there are the number of coins to to count which is a finite number.
Again – based upon what rational objection to you discount Moses and his numbers? Lack of evidence? Archeology? Mere feeling? Your “beliefs” of course are your own, but I am merely interested by what methodology you accept the greater points of biblical accuracy (Atonement) and reject others (such as if Moses accurately counted coins and wrote it down accurately or not).
As to 122 – if we have a problem with definitions of words to no meaning, I guess we can enter the world of the deconstructionist. I do not want to play there.
Rob
Rick Presley, you asked the following in comment #69:
“There do appear to be some transcription errors, geneology discrepancies, and differences in the accounts in Kings vs. Chronicles, etc. So why do we say the Bible is without error when we acknowledge up front that we don’t have all the answers to the discrepancies?”
I think it would be helpful for you to read the Chicago Statement if you haven’t done so already. Here’s a link:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
One of the key verses is 2 Timothy 3:16. The original documents must be inerrant because they were breathed (inspired) by God.
BT,
Nice philosophical construct, but it has little to do with actual exegesis. I actually do believe in the perfection of God’s knowledge. However, I would be hesitant to base that belief upon the teaching of Elihu. In the context of the book of Job, the teachings of such “friends” deserve to be scrutinized intensely.
As for exegesis, it would be difficult to say that the biblical author taught the absolute perfection of God’s word based upon the adjective he chose to use in Ps 19:7. Philosophically you may be able to make a case, but exegetically, biblical usage of the term he chose is far too broad to be so restrictive in its meaning in Ps 19:7. The term applied to God’s word in Ps 19:7 the Bible also applies to Noah, David, and Job.
Joe–
I’m not in the least surprised by your comment. With God and CR riding on your shoulder, you certainly are always “in the know.”
We have some other good and clear thinking going on here.
What I would like to advocate is that we get off the minutia of declaring what the Bible “said,” and get into the world of “what it means today.”
Therein, we will find some real direction from the Holy Sprit rather than the dictates of BF&M 2000!
God is so much bigger than Baptists or our “new Creed.” The Holy Spirit is trying to get us to love and forgive one another so that churches don’t have to take “Baptist” off their church sign to have any acceptance by the public which is reading this blog and deciding whether we are crazy or not!
My daddy taught me a great lesson from his wise Baptist Minister position: God is real and present through the Holy Spirit. Harsh discourse which seperates people one from another is a waste. Anyone who know better, but uses a word like “myth” to confuse and anger ingnorant church members so he can get elected President of the SBC may be surprised when he faces God one day and is sent to Hell for being a “formentor of discord.”
Gene,
Is God one who changes His mind?
It is the Holy Spirit who indeed leads us to truth so that we will see and accept the Truth – yet He will not share anything outside the parameters of His previous revelation as truth. If the Spirit is inconsistent from a previous revelation, then we have a god like those of Greek mythology who cannot make up their mind on which way the wind is turning, or the clothes they desire to put on any given day.
i.e. – homosexuality. Can the Spirit say today that same sex couples are “loving examples of his creation” when the same Spirit claimed to inspire Leviticus and the condemnation of the same? With the affirmation of the words of Jesus who said “not one jod or tittle”?
i.e. – divorce. Can anyone make the claim that the Spirit is leading them to divorce their wife and marry their secretary when the Spirit has already claimed in the pages of Scripture about what is thought of those who do so and the consequences of the same?
i.e. – Exclusivity. Can anyone make the claim like Kirby Godsey does that Jesus is not the exclusive means to know God when the writer of Acts portends that Peter claims through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “There Is No Salvation in No One Else; for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”(NAMB if you want to know). Which spirit was Godsey channeling? Certainly not the one Peter knew.
These examples are contradictions between those who claim “the Spirit leads us…” and others who see the Spirit affirming, revealing, and speaking through the word of Christ. One cannot rationalize away that indeed they are contradictory and cannot both be true simultaneously. One is true. One is false. We are told “One faith, One hope, One Baptism, One Spirit.” Of which of these examples are affirmed by the the Spirit of Truth, and which of these follow the spirit of man. The Bible makes a claim concerning in each what is true and what is false. Which ones do you claim Gene?
Rob
Kevin Peacock, you said,
“As for exegesis, it would be difficult to say that the biblical author taught the absolute perfection of God’s word based upon the adjective he chose to use in Ps 19:7. Philosophically you may be able to make a case, but exegetically, biblical usage of the term he chose is far too broad to be so restrictive in its meaning in Ps 19:7. The term applied to God’s word in Ps 19:7 the Bible also applies to Noah, David, and Job.”
Understanding the context is essential to good exegesis. In the context of Psalm 19:7, the only meaning of the word that is possible is 100 percent, unblemished perfection. Any other meaning of the word would mean that God is less than perfect. My argument is both philosophical and exegetical. You cannot do good exegesis without considering the context. I hope this helps.
By the way – the number of responses on this post breaks my record.
I know many of you were having cross-talk conversations with each other (so I really do not know if those post should count or not) but nevertheless I am happy that this issue has elicited discussion. All this from a writing I did in about ten minutes!
Rob
Rob–
Everything you say reflects more a belief in BF&M 2000 than the Word of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit to lead us right now–TODAY!
Now, get to basics as Jesus put it when asked what it the Great Commandment?
His answer was simple: “Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind and heart–and the second is like unto it–Love your neighbor as yourself. In these 2 commandements are contained all the law and the prophets!”
I’m not quoting exactly as I pull out my “Inerrant Bible,” but you will find me pretty close. That is simple Scripture–from a simple Saviour–speaking to a bunch of nit-picking Pharisees–and bugging the devil out of them by not being so leagalististic and obtruse!!!!
Oops, in regard to my comment #139, I was thinking about Job 37:16, not Psalm 19:7. My argument has been simply that if the word can refer to 100 percent, unblemished perfection in Job 37:16, then it can also refer to the same thing in regard to the Torah in Psalm 19:7. I’ll add another argument. Let’s look at the definition from Gesenius’ Hebrew lexicon again:
“(1) perfect, complete, Psalm 19:[7]; Job 36:4; 37:16.
(2) whole, entire, Lev. 3:9; 25:30; Josh. 10:13.
(3) perfect, whole, sound—(a) free from blemishes, used of victims, Ex. 12:5; Lev. 1:3.—(b) safe, secure, used of men, Prov. 1:12.—(c) whole, upright in conduct, blameless, Gen. 6:9; 17:1.”
If the Torah has error, then would any of these definitions apply to Psalm 19:7? It could not be regarded as “perfect, complete” (1). Errors would make it imperfect and incomplete (lacking complete truth). It could not be regarded as “whole, entire” (2). Errors would make it partial in terms of truth. It could not be regarded as “perfect, whole, sound . . . free from blemishes . . . safe, secure” (3). Errors would make it blemished and unsound.
Gene:
Whether Rob and the others of his mind want to admit it the 2000 BF&M totally changed the way the Bible is to be viewed for SB. It caused missionaries to be fired, women’s roles in Baptist churches to be rolled back decades but for those that support the 2000 BF&M it is the be all of being a SB.
It truly is a sad day for the SBC. No, the GCR aint going to fix 30 years of sliding backwards.
Tom, see my comment from #127:
“When we rehearse history and deal with personalities involved in the conservative resurgence, we have usually allowed our conversation to devolve into ad hominem attacks on the character of the people on either side.”
Kevin, I’m trying to understand your point of view in regard to Psalm 19:7. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that the word “perfect” in the verse could mean “complete” rather than 100 percent unblemished (inerrant). Would there really be any difference in the interpretation of the verse if we substituted “complete” for “perfect”? Could it be complete without being inerrant? If there were errors in the Torah, could we describe it as complete? How could it be described as complete if it was not completely truthful? If it were errant, would it not be incomplete (lacking complete truth)?
Andrew, I saw the Iowa comment – expect retribution.
And Rob, not to call your integrity into question with comment 140, but I’m guessing it took more than 10 minutes just to come up with that title.
Good stuff, though.
BT,
How could Noah, Job, and David be described as “100 percent unblemished perfection”? What is common about the biblical usages is that of wholeness, completeness, soundness, or integrity. Noah possessed this quality in his day (Gen 6:9), and God demanded it of Abram (Gen 17:1). In the Psalms, the term usually connotes moral integrity (Ps 7:8; 15:2; 26:1,11; 37:18,37; 41:12; 78:72). A person of integrity is wholly committed to God, not necessarily “perfect” or “sinless.” If we want to consider the context of Ps 19:7 in the psalter, such a quality is predominantly used of people, not God’s word. The psalm immediately previous to our discussion (another “psalm of David”) uses the term at least five times (18:23, 25[2x], 30, 32). That psalm compares God’s “integrity” with that of people of “integrity” (18:25). Is the psalmist trying to say that people can be “perfect”? It seems that our modern concept of “perfection” was not even on the psalmist’s radar screen. If we force the issue, we are not being true to the biblical teaching but instead forcing philosophical concepts onto the biblical text.
Considering the biblical connotations of that term, and especially with its usage in the psalter, I believe a good translation of Ps 19:7 would then be: “Yahweh’s teaching has integrity, restoring life. Yahweh’s declaration is reliable, giving insight to the untaught.” That’s enough for me to trust it!
BT, I’m not fighting your doctrine of inerrancy here. Instead, I’m saying let’s build our doctrines from a sound exegesis of the biblical text. I don’t believe the psalmist is speaking of “100 percent unblemished perfection.” Elsewhere the Bible may teach this, but from the evidence, I don’t believe that is the intent of the psalmist here.
It caused missionaries to be fired, women’s roles in Baptist churches to be rolled back decades
I’m sorry. I missed the part where those events were a bad thing.
Gene, the meaning of scripture doesn’t change. The text (which is inerrant by the way. All Christians know that) may have many applications but only one interpretation. It’s called basic hermenutics. Maybe you should look into taking a class on it.
Joe–
You “underwhelm” me with your fine show of intellectual abilities!
Just go ahead and say, “Blah–blah–blah–whatever BF&M 2000 says.”
Please save us a lot of time with the empty explainations.
RE: comment #140
Rob,
This has indeed been a good discussion. And, it was all sparked by your insightful post. These are real issues and core issues that we are discussing, and various important perspectives are well represented. In spite of the various digressions, and the occasional over-the-top ad hominem remark, I think this post and comment stream are very instructive overall, and speak well for the value of blogs as a good medium for theological debate and discussion.
Great to have you back around!
Rob: I obviously won’t hold you to this, but if you had to guess, how many Israelites (and others) would have walked abreast across the Red Sea and out of Egypt? 20? 30?
I don’t believe the scriptures were wrong, but I think the translation and/or transmission might be in some cases, particularly when dealing with numbers.
If the Israelites (and others) walked 30 abreast, and kept a mere 3 feet between themselves and the persons in front and in back of them (an unreasonable assumption), a column of 3 million people is almost 57 miles long. This doesn’t include livestock.
We also read later during the conquest that the loss of 35 men threw the Israelites into despair. Does that seem likely with an army of 600000?
How many armies in the history of the world sustained 600000 troops?
There are other arguments (not unique with me) that argue for a smaller exodus, but this isn’t the place.
Bottom line, I do not believe in inerrant transmission and translation.
People did (some still do) believe the world was flat. They did believe the sun revolved around the earth. We now know better. I don’t blame the writers, and I don’t call those errors, but the fact remains that general revelation from God has and can help us clarify scriptural revelation. Thus far, archeology and/or mathematics don’t support a 3 million + Exodus. Perhaps someday they will, or perhaps someday we’ll find an even older manuscript which sheds more light on the issue.
And before we divide this into a liberal/conservative thing, I would point you to the fairly recent alcohol debates where some have asserted that the words “strong drink” in Deuteronomy actually means some type of fruit juice.
A little inspiration
YOU TOOK MY PARKING PLACE AT CHURCH!
One day, a man went to visit a church. He got there early, parked his car and got out. Another car pulled up near him. The driver got out and said, “I always park there! You took my place!”
The visitor went inside for Sunday School, found an empty seat and sat down. A young lady from the church approached him and stated, “That’s my seat! You took my place!” The visitor was somewhat distressed by this rude welcome, but said nothing.
After Sunday school, the visitor went into the sanctuary and sat down. Another member walked up to him and said, “That’s where I always sit! You took my place!”
The visitor was even more troubled by this treatment, but still He said nothing.
Later as the congregation was praying for Christ to dwell among them, the visitor stood up, and his appearance began to change. Horrible scars became visible on his hands and on his sandaled feet.
Someone from the congregation noticed him and called out, “What happened to you?”
The visitor replied, as his hat became a crown of thorns, and a tear fell from his eye, “I took your place.”
You know, I have been gently reprimanded in this and other comment threads, and rightly so I guess. I mean, it is your blog and I have been insulting, dismissive, and generally antagonistic toward those moderate/mainstream christians–and I’ve meant every word of it.
I find it interesting, however, that Gene really hasn’t even been gently taken to task. However, I may have missed it. Further, it’s not like anyone owes me an explanation. It was just an observation.
Joe,
Have you ignored my posts to Gene?
Rob
Bill,
Your lack of “belief” would be the same I imagine say if Peter walked on water or not. Right? Or is the number one man walking on water more managable than 600,000 men walking out of Egypt with their woman and children. My golly, how big is God anyway?
I understand your skepticism. However it is based upon belief, on part that 3,000,000 people is an unmanagable number. Since neither of was there to see it, all we have left is trust.
By the way, Numbers 1 reiterates with more accuracy the first census, added by the individual tribes. The total number of men at Mt. Horeb (according to Mosche) was 603,550 (the number of coins counted). That is a count that is wrong in two places, not just one.
Rob
Joe Blackmon done found him a liberal
http://heargodspeak.blogspot.com/2010/02/so-there-were-no-liberals-in-sbc.html
Rob:
Joe B. said the following:”You know, I have been gently reprimanded in this and other comment threads, and rightly so I guess. I mean, it is your blog and I have been insulting, dismissive, and generally antagonistic toward those moderate/mainstream christians–and I’ve meant every word of it.”
Is that not an incredible statement above?
How many will be won to Christ when they are treated this way?
My prayer for Joe, as I go to bed is that of a little girl:
Dear God–
Please make all bad people good—-and all good people nice!
Kevin, you asked the following in #148:
“How could Noah, Job, and David be described as ‘100 percent unblemished perfection’?”
I have looked at each of the verses you mentioned. I’ll try to answer your question. In terms of 100 percent unblemished righteousness, that righteousness can only be imputed to us. I think Genesis 15:6 is relevant to this type of righteousness in regard to Abraham: “Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Just as Abraham’s faith “was accounted to Him for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3), so our “faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). We are justified by faith (Rom. 3:28), not by our works (Rom. 4:4-5). In God’s eyes we are 100 percent righteous because of His imputed righteousness. There should also be righteous conduct in our daily walk. As Christians, we do sin, but we can grow spiritually and become complete (τελειος) but not perfect in terms of sinless perfection.
There are similar issues with the Greek word. For example, Matthew 5:48 uses τελειος:
“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
John Gill confirmed this connection between the Hebrew and Greek words for “perfect” in his comment on Matthew 5:48 which seems to opt for less than the 100 percent type of perfection:
“To be ‘perfect,’ is to be sincere and upright: in this sense is the word often used, and answers to the Hebrew word tamiym, which signifies the same: see Deu 18:13 which is the passage Christ seems to refer to here; and the sense is, be ye sincere and upright in your love to all men, as your heavenly Father is hearty and sincere in his affections to them.”
A. T. Robertson, however, viewed the perfection in Matthew 5:48 as the 100 percent type:
“Perfect (teleioi). The word comes from telos, end, goal, limit. Here it is the goal set before us, the absolute standard of our Heavenly Father. The word is used also for relative perfection as of adults compared with children.”
Obviously, we are not perfect in the sense of 100 percent sinlessness. Christ’s 100 percent sinless righteousness, however, has been imputed to believers.
Let’s deal with another verse. Many commentators interpret Ezekiel 28:15 as referring to Satan:
“You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you.”
The Hebrew word “tamiym” is used for “blameless,” and it is also used in Ezekiel 43:22-25 to refer to unblemished animals prepared for sacrifice. Thus, it is clear that Satan was created without sin, but sin was later found in him. Satan’s 100 percent righteousness before his first sin was mutable. He did sin and became unrighteous. Only God has always been immutably righteous. Notice Matthew 19:17:
“And He said to him, ‘Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’”
John Gill commented on Matthew 19:17:
“There is none good but one, that is God; who is originally, essentially, independently, infinitely, and immutably good, and the author and source of all goodness; which cannot be said of any mere creature. This is to be understood of God considered essentially, and not personally; or it is to be understood, not of the person of the Father, to the exclusion of the Son, or Spirit: who are one God with the Father, and equally good in nature as he. Nor does this contradict and deny that there are good angels, who have continued in that goodness in which they were created; or that there are good men, made so by the grace of God; but that none are absolutely and perfectly good, but God. What Christ here says of God, the (b) Jews say of the law of Moses, whose praise they can never enough extol; ‘there is nothing good but the law.’ The law is good indeed; but the author of it must be allowed to be infinitely more so.”
The original documents of the Bible (including the Torah) were mutably perfect on earth in the 100 percent sense, but our current translations are not perfect. The Bible is immutably perfect in the eternal sense (Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:25, Psalm 119:89). Textual criticism is thus very important here on earth.
Let’s look at Psalm 19:7-8:
“The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.”
Notice what the passage says about the word of God:
1. It is perfect.
2. It restores the soul.
3. It is sure. (trustworthy)
4. It makes wise the simple.
5. It is right.
6. It rejoices the heart.
7. It is pure. (unblemished)
8. It enlightens the eyes.
When we look at “perfect” in context, we cannot ignore “sure” and “pure.” The idea of 100 percent unblemished perfection is there. If errors were in it, we could not trust it; it would not be sure. If errors were in it, it would not be pure and unblemished; rather, it would be blemished.
Rob,
As I said, I don’t believe in inerrant transmission and translation. If you do, you do. I’m sure it works for some people. You are suggesting the possibility of some sort if miraculous time compression or speedy gonzales movement on the part of the Israelites? Sure, God can do that. The text doesn’t seem to suggest they moved under anything but their own steam, but who knows?
I think there is a possibility of a transmission / translation error on this issue. I don’t think what we know now of history, archeology, and supply chain / logistics supports an exodus of 3 million people. Fortunately, my trust in the scriptures and my faith in God does not rest on the accuracy of the number, just as it does not rest on the age of the earth or whether the sun orbits the planet.
OK. I think I’m done. Time for bed.
P.S.: Many Muslims believe that the Qur’an is perfect, eternal, and uncreated. Conservative Christians like me, however, believe that the Bible is perfect, eternal (in reference to the future), and created. God has always known every detail of the future, and He has always known what the content of the Bible would be. The books of the Bible were created, however, when the Holy Spirit moved men to write them. Each book of the Bible was God-breathed when it was written. I wanted to make that distinction. Many people think that Muslims and Christians view their respective books in exactly the same way, and that is not the case.
BT,
Again, a great philosophical construct that seems to be totally foreign to the OT writer. If the OT writer meant “imputed righteousness” with the term “blameless,” then why would God command Abram to “walk before Me and be blameless” (Gen 17:1) if Abram’s “imputed righteousness” had already been established in 15:6? Wasn’t the testing of Job over the quality of his faith relationship to God rather than a quality that had already been imputed to him (Job 1:8-9)?
David said of himself, “Yahweh had rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not acted wickedly against my God. For all His ordinances were before, and as far as His statutes, I did not depart from them. I was also blameless toward Him, and I kept myself from my iniquity” (2 Sam 22:21-24). Call me dense, but it seems quite clear from David’s testimony that his “blamelessness” before God was in terms of what he had done, not according to what had been imputed to him. Reading imputation into this seems to be a huge hermeneutical stretch.
The quality of “blamelessness” in the OT is presented as a combination of God’s grace and man’s activity (Gen 6:8-9). Such is the life of holiness. In the NT, God requires an overseer to be “blameless” (1 Tim 3:2). If this simply referred to his “imputed righteousness,” does this mean that he simply needs to be a believer?
As I stated earlier, the Hebrew concept is of a person of moral integrity. This person is wholly committed to God but is not necessarily “perfect” or “sinless.” Such concepts seem to be foreign to the OT writer’s thoughts.
Since Ps 19:7 is a Davidic psalm, let me encourage you to do some research on the Davidic use of “tammim” found in the Davidic statements in the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and in the Davidic psalms. This would be most revealing of David’s vernacular usage of the term. If “authorial intent” is the baseline for our hermeneutics, then that would be the best way to determine what David meant by the term in his psalm in Ps 19:7.
Kevin, you asked:
“If the OT writer meant ‘imputed righteousness’ with the term ‘blameless,’ then why would God command Abram to ‘walk before Me and be blameless’ (Gen 17:1) if Abram’s ‘imputed righteousness’ had already been established in 15:6?”
Here’s what I said in #160:
“In God’s eyes we are 100 percent righteous because of His imputed righteousness. There should also be righteous conduct in our daily walk.”
Abram was commanded to walk righteously in Genesis 17:1, but he could only do that because righteousness had been imputed to him in 15:6. There is a necessary connection between our righteous acts and God’s imputed righteousness. Christians can still sin, but any truly righteous act that we do has its ultimate origin in God’s righteousness. Our righteous acts are grounded on God’s righteousness. Notice Isaiah 64:6 in the NASB:
“For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”
Also notice Psalm 14:1b:
“There is no one who does good.”
All of us are impure because of sin. We can do absolutely nothing righteous apart from God’s imputed righteousness. Noah, Abraham, David, and Moses are mentioned in the faith chapter (Hebrews 11) because “by faith” they were able to do righteous acts. They were justified by faith. Their faith was reckoned as righteousness apart from works.
You mentioned 2 Samuel 22:21-24. David was able to do righteous acts because he had first received imputed righteousness. Verse 25 is virtually identical to Psalm 18:20. John Gill commented on Psalm 18:20:
“The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness, . . . Which, if applied to David, cannot be understood of his own personal righteousness, or of works of righteousness done by him, for these merit nothing at the hand of God; no reward, in strict justice, is due to them, or given to them: a man’s own righteousness is imperfect, and by the law of God is not accounted a righteousness; and it is unprofitable to God, is no gain to him, and so not rewardable by him; and were it perfect, it is but man’s duty, and what God has a prior right to, and so is not recompensed by him; though it is so far from being pure and perfect, that it is attended with much sin, and is no other than rags, and filthy ones, which can never recommend a person to God; it is what will not bear the sight of God, and can never be called cleanness in his eyesight: by it no man is justified before him; and though God does, indeed, reward the works of his people, which are fruits of his grace, yet the reward is not of debt, but of grace. This, therefore, must be understood of the righteousness of David’s cause, and of his innocence with respect to the things he was charged with by his enemies; of his righteousness towards Saul; and of ‘the cleanness of his hands,’ in not defiling them with his blood, when it was in his power to take away his life; therefore God rewarded him by delivering him out of his hands, and setting him upon the throne, and causing his kingdom to flourish and prosper; for this respects temporal blessings, and not eternal glory and happiness; and is something that had been and was then enjoyed, and not anything future, or in another world: though it is best of all to apply it to Christ, and understand it of his righteousness, which he, as Mediator, has wrought out for his people; this is perfect, pure, and spotless, and entirely agreeable to the law of God; what will bear the sight of God, is satisfying to his justice, is well pleasing to him, and is what he accepts of, and imputes to them that believe in Christ, and by which they are justified from all things. Now, according to this righteousness, Christ in strict justice has been rewarded in his own person; as he had the work of man’s redemption assigned him, and he agreed to do it, he had a reward promised him, and which he claimed, when he had glorified his Father and finished his work; and which he received when he was set down at the right hand of God, crowned with glory and honour, in consequence of his obedience, sufferings, and death; see Phi 2:7; and he is rewarded in his members according to his righteousness, they being justified by it, and made heirs of eternal life on account of it, and are or will be glorified with him for evermore.”
You said:
“In the NT, God requires an overseer to be ‘blameless’ (1 Tim 3:2). If this simply referred to his ‘imputed righteousness,’ does this mean that he simply needs to be a believer?”
A different word is used here for “blameless.” It is the word “ανεπιληπτος.” Marvin Vincent discussed the word in a comment on 1 Timothy 3:2:
“Or without reproach: one who cannot be laid hold of (λαμβανειν): who gives no ground for accusation. Only in 1st Timothy.”
Thomas Lea also discussed the word in the same verse:
“It describes a person of such character that no one can properly bring against him a charge of unfitness.”
Lea, “1, 2 Timothy,” in vol. 34 of The New American Commentary, ed. David Dockery (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 109.
Thus, this word refers to being blameless in the eyes of the public. It can be used to present a strong argument against divorced men serving as pastors.
Again, I think you have to consider the context of Psalm 19:7. We cannot ignore the words “sure” and “pure.”
Rob, this has been an excellent post by you and deserves more concentrated discussion on your main points than it has received. I would like to have spent more time on my comments in #45 but I have not had the time to even read all the discussions. I apologize for my part in leading the discussion astray at times.
I do feel like I should answer David Rogers question to me in #75 as follows, “And yet, people holding to the views espoused here by Bruce, Stephen, and Gene, at one time exercised a whole lot more influence in the SBC than they do now. Would you not agree this is the case?”
I have not followed closely the views espoused by Bruce, Stephen, and Gene so I don’t want to attribute something to them that is not true but if you are saying views that the Bible is not true or not authoritative or not truth, without mixture of error, as David Miller puts it, I would so “no” those espousing those views did not exercise a whole lot more influence in the SBC then than they do now.
I guess it depends on what you mean by the SBC. If you are referring to the annual meeting of the SBC, I have never heard anyone espousing that the Bible was not true or not authoritative speak that or exercise influence either before or after the PCR at the annual meeting. No SBC church I have been a member of (6 churches) had anyone holding those views exercise influence then or now. My state convention (Arkansas) did not have those holding those views exercise influence then or now. My seminary, SWBTS, did not have those holding those views exercise influence then or now. The IMB where I have served since before the PCR has not had those holding those views exercise influence before 1979 or after.
I am not saying no one in SBC life did not espouse those views or have influence. It sounds as if Volfan and David Miller were surrounded by liberals espousing views that the Bible was not true but they are the exception and not the rule.
David, there has been no conservative resurgence in my churches because they were already conservative. The same is true of my state convention and I believe most state conventions. My seminary, SWBTS, is not more conservative now than it was when Dr. Naylor was president in the 70s. It is more conservative politically but probably less conservative theologically so there has been no conservative resurgence there. There has been no conservative resurgence at the IMB where you and I served because we were as conservative theologically before 1979 as we are now.
Now will you answer this question? If the CR was about theology and not control, why have each of these theologically conservative institutions I mentioned, the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, SWBTS, and the IMB been attacked, slandered and damaged by leaders of the CR?
Do you agree or disagree with my statement in #73 that Baker James Cauthen, Robert Naylor, and Roy Fish were representatives of mainstream SBC life before the CR? Were they liberal?
Ron,
“If the CR was about theology and not control, why have each of these theologically conservative institutions I mentioned, the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, SWBTS, and the IMB been attacked, slandered and damaged by leaders of the CR?”
To answer this question, we would have to study each instance on a case by case basis. I’m sure there has been a mixture of motives, and some sin, and some misguided zeal, and perhaps, from time to time, some valid concerns. But, I don’t know enough about the specific details to comment any more directly, nor do I wish to hijack this comment stream any further.
“Do you agree or disagree with my statement in #73 that Baker James Cauthen, Robert Naylor, and Roy Fish were representatives of mainstream SBC life before the CR?”
Yes. As were many others of various theological positions.
“Were they liberal?”
In the case of these particular men, I am not aware of anything that would justify calling them liberal.
David Rogers:
I understand your wish to move away from what you consider a hijacking of this thread.
Was Russell Dilday a conservative?
How About Charles Marsh’s father, Robert, a contemporary of your Dad at NOBTS; whose belated insight into the nature of the CR is a matter of record easily googled up.
The BX 6400 shelf at any decent library with a Baptist history is crying out for you and Rob Ayers to read.
Look at DAvid Morgan’s Holy Crusaders written about 15 years ago.
Look up my name in the index; i’m footnoted there.
HOw about Tom Corts, former president of Samford, or the current President Underwood; are they liberals???
REad what Carey Newman and DAvid Gushee had to say about Southern Seminary in 93, hired in the first days of the Mohler regime and their experience there. Read their statements in Barry Hankins Uneasy in Babylon, in the BX 6400′s.
In all kindness and candor, the Baptist nation deserves no less from the son of Adrian Rogers. And I say that cause so far in my online experience with you, I have come to believe you have a good heart.
Kind words from Robert Marsh toward Adrian Rogers in this link below where Marsh shares his tortured coming to grips with the nature of the CR to his deacons belatedly at 2nd Ponce in Atlanta where he followed Russell Dilday.
It was in that church Bill Self preached his great sermon Why I am a Baptist the Sunday before the 86 Convention in Atlanta.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%22I+don't+let+nobody+blow+smoke+on+my+blue+skies%22%3a+a+study+of+the+%22SBC…-a0162618835
I had friends that went to Southern Seminary back in the 1980′s and before, before the CR had a chance to straighten out that liberal hotbed out. I’ve heard tales from them. One of my friends quit Southern due to extreme liberalism, and he said that they actually called Dr. Adrian Rogers the “Devil” around campus and in the classrooms. They hated him.
Also, like some of you others have said in here, if the Bible contains errors…the original manuscripts…then we have no faith. We have no hope. We have no God. We need to place our Bibles on the bookshelves and let them collect dust. We need to lock the doors of our churches, and quit playing religious games. We should go out and frequent the bars, buy all the weed you can lay your hands on, and live the rest of our lives feeding our flesh. Going to Church and trying to deny our flesh would be the life of an idiot. The grave would all we’d have to look forward to…with a very uncertain, fuzzy existence beyond the grave. Or, there could be nothing at all. You die, and that’s it. So, you’d better party and live life to the fullest on all the vices that are out there to please the flesh, because this is as good as it gets.
Gene, the Holy Spirit has laid upon my heart and mind that the Bible is true…with no errors. And, He has laid on my heart that someone, who seeks to undermine the Bible and the faith of others, is a false teacher; a heretic. The Holy Spirit has shown me that heretics go to one of the lowest places of Hell, where the fire burns forever, where there’s nashing of teeth. The Holy Spirit has shown me that those people, who try to turn one of His little ones away from Him, try to make them a disciple of Hell, well….it’d be better for a millstone to be tied around their neck and be cast into the sea than to face God and what He has planned for them.
Hugs and Kisses,
David
David,
You said, “…if the Bible contains errors…the original manuscripts…then we have no faith. We have no hope. We have no God. We need to place our Bibles on the bookshelves and let them collect dust. We need to lock the doors of our churches, and quit playing religious games. We should go out and frequent the bars, buy all the weed you can lay your hands on, and live the rest of our lives feeding our flesh. Going to Church and trying to deny our flesh would be the life of an idiot. The grave would all we’d have to look forward to…with a very uncertain, fuzzy existence beyond the grave. Or, there could be nothing at all. You die, and that’s it. So, you’d better party and live life to the fullest on all the vices that are out there to please the flesh, because this is as good as it gets.”
Why?
First of all if only the autographs are error free, then that means you have a document with errors in it unless you believe in the inerrancy of your translation/version of the Bible.
So if you are currently using an “errant” translation/version of the text, aren’t you in the same boat?
Mostly, though, I don’t see how typographical, grammatical, and accounting errors will achieve the disastrous results you envision. Can you connect the dots for me from an autograph that minor inconsistencies to rampant hedonism?
Rick,
If there are errors in some of it, then what can we trust? If the Bible is wrong about Moses parting the Red Sea, then how can I believe what the Bible says about my salvation? If the Bible is not from the heart and mind of God, given to us by the Holy Spirit as he laid it upon godly men to write it; then, how can I believe what it says about Heaven?
If there are errors in the original manuscripts, of which we try to get as close as we possibly can in our translations, then we have no faith. All trust is gone. If there are errors in the original manuscripts, of which we try to base our translations on, or at least we should be, by looking at all the older copies that are out there, by looking at the quotes of the Early Church Fathers, etc.; if there are errors in the originals, then we are fools for claiming any relationship with God, or for trusting in fairy tales and myths.
Thus, Rick, if we dont have an inerrant Bible to base our faith on, then we need to quit being fools, and get the party started. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
David
Has anyone claimed errors in the original manuscripts? At least in this conversation?
Rick, let me try to explain why the inerrancy of the original documents is so important by using a hypothetical analogy:
Let’s suppose that 500 years ago 40 of the best Italian cooks in the world pooled their knowledge to produce a cookbook containing 66 recipes for the Italian dishes loved by most people (manicotti, etc.). The members of the general public at that time who loved to cook Italian food believed that these cooks were experts and that they got their recipes just right. When the books went on sale, they sold like hotcakes. They were copied through the years and translated into different languages. Some of the Italian words were difficult to translate, and some minor mistakes were made in the copying process that did not affect the outcome of the cooking process, but scholars utilized textual criticism to examine old manuscripts and made progress in moving current editions of the cookbook closer to the supposed perfection of the original book. Meanwhile, some scholars engaged in higher criticism accused the original cooks of making errors in the original book. Many people believed these scholars, and they quit buying the book because they thought there might be shortcuts that would make cooking easier and that would produce food just as good as that produced by following the recipes in the old book. They thought the recipes in the old cookbook were too difficult and time-consuming. Many other people, however, did not lose their faith in the old cookbook. They continued using it to produce wonderful Italian food. In areas where people still believe that the original cookbook is inerrant, current editions of the cookbook are bestsellers and lead to good cooking. In areas where people have lost faith in the old cookbook, the cookbook is rarely seen, and the Italian food in such areas is lousy.
Dr. Yarnell,
You made a great analogy by using something dear to my heart…food. You put it right where I could understand it. Thanks.
Bill, Gene, Fox, Tom Parker, do you believe that we have translations today that are so close to the originals that we can trust them as God’s Word? And, that in reading the translations of today, that we can depend on them as the Word of God on which to base our faith?
David
David W., I am flattered to be confused with Dr. Yarnell, but I am not he. I’m your Bozo’s Barbecue buddy from West Tennessee.
Mike Morris (aka BT)
P.S.: It’s about time for you, me, David Rogers, and Geoff to get together again at Bozo’s in Mason. I think there are others who would like to join us.
When I try to explain revealed truth from scripture I find that my words always miss the mark, however, some are changed and some are saved. Would preaching or teaching the Word be inerrant or errant?
Russell Dilday has a great statement on Scripture from his 1975 sermon Why I Believe the Bible.
I tried to leave the link in a post about 7 back, but it was faulty.
This should take you there straight away
http://tinyurl.com/ylg9a4x
Great history of how one church dealt with the Conservative Resurgence including the tortured pilgrimage of Adrian Rogers contemporary at NOBTS, Robert Marsh, who followed Dilday at 2nd Ponce in Atlanta.
Volfan: I wish you would drop by the nearest Barnes and Noble and read about Preacher McIntyre in my friend Ron Rash’s novel Serena.
The cynics come around to see his vision at the end; though the novel is about much more.
As a VolFan to some degree your stay on this earth will be measured by how well you absorb Knoxville’s gift to AMerican letters, Cormac McCarthy.
You may want to google up Suttree as a BArefoot Jesus; just to improve your validity as a man who carries his affection for his native state, I take it, on his sleeve.
Bill, Gene, Fox, Tom Parker, do you believe that we have translations today that are so close to the originals that we can trust them as God’s Word? And, that in reading the translations of today, that we can depend on them as the Word of God on which to base our faith?
Speaking only for myself, absolutely.
BT,
I’m done. If you want to know what David meant by the term, then examine the other passages where he used the term. If you simply want to bolster your preconceived theology, then by all means, place as much theological weight you want on a term regardless if the biblical writer placed that much weight on the term.
Imposing theological constructs such as imputed righteousness on Noah’s, David’s, and Job’s blamelessness is not sound exegesis – unless the specific texts themselves reveal such a truth. I would hope that we could build our doctrines from the ground up based upon solid exegesis rather than theological/philosophical constructs.
I’ve got other things I need to do. Blessings to you in your endeavors.
Gentlemen, I leave this discussion with this parting thought for those of you whose faith, by your own declaration, rests upon biblical inerrancy:
From behind your pulpits you preach from an errant Bible that you proclaim your congregation must believe.
Yet you place the validity of your own faith upon the perfection of a manuscript that does not exist (and never has existed) and a human theory about the Bible that is foreign to the Bible (what can be more theologically liberal than re-writing the Bible to suit your own extra-biblical agenda?).
Your faith rests on nothing (literally), and the so-called “Conservative Resurgence” was about nothing (literally).
RE: comment #179
BT Mike,
Sounds like a winner. Be sure to count me in.
BBQ from Bozo’s, by the way, falls within the general category of Memphis BBQ, as referenced in comment #79.
David, you said, “…if we dont have an inerrant Bible to base our faith on, then we need to quit being fools, and get the party started. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”
Additonally, Mike (Baptist Theolgue) said: “Many other people, however, did not lose their faith in the old cookbook.”
I notice that people were not placing their faith in the cooks who authored the book, but the book itself.
I believe that is my point:
If you faith is in a book, however sacred and holy you deem it to be, your faith is misplaced. Those who want to please God must believe that HE exists and that he rewards those who seek HIM diligently. If you have put your faith and trust in the book rather than the author, then I can see why one’s faith would come crashing down if:
A. In order for it to be credible for you, it must be perfect in all points possible including grammatical and accounting standards.
B. If it were ever shown to have minor, inconsequential variations and inconsistencies it would be deemed “corrupt” or “imperfect” or in some way incredible, unbelievable, and unworthy of your faith.
Sticking with Mike’s analogy, he said, “Some of the Italian words were difficult to translate, and some minor mistakes were made in the copying process that did not affect the outcome of the cooking process, but scholars utilized textual criticism to examine old manuscripts and made progress in moving current editions of the cookbook closer to the supposed perfection of the original book.”
At what point does a minor mistake in the translating/copying process result in an effect in the outcome? And how would we know?
I think it is interesting that in critiquing higher criticism, Mike, you undermine the basis of your argument as the critics are getting to the “supposed perfection” of the original. Yet inerrantists believe that the originals were perfect. It is interesting that those who make the loudest noise about the autographs being perfect are the same ones who criticize the higher critics for trying to reproduce as accurately as possible the original perfect text. Inconsistent much?
My point still stands: If your faith is in the book, it is misplaced. If your faith requires a perfect book (rather than a perfect savior) then it is also misplaced.
And for the record, I hold to the inerrantist position of the Chicago statement even though I find the term “inerrant” unfortunate.
Bruce Gourley,
Fine. I understand. You feel you have made your point, and this conversation is kind of going in circles.
I would direct you (and others) back to your comment #97, though. I feel that our differences, as evidenced there, are at the root of our differences, as mentioned by you, here in comment #121: we have a different view of the basic meaning of divine revelation and biblical inspiration.
Perhaps, at another time, we can have a more in-depth discussion focusing in on those particular issues.
Kevin,
What passages would you use to support inerrancy? I think the reason you and BT are butting heads here is because by saying, “I don’t believe the psalmist is speaking of “100 percent unblemished perfection,” he’s taking it as “The psalmist is speaking of blemished perfection” or “The psalmist is speaking of imperfection.” From the comments of others in the comment stream, it’s not hard to believe that someone would say that. That’s why I’m asking for where you get the doctrine of inerrancy.
I had a professor tell me that I couldn’t say that it was 32 degrees Celcius (for my Canadian friend) outside because that was not accurate–there’s always another decimal place of accuracy out there, even if I don’t have the tools to measure it.
I think you follow this logic when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Personnally I believe that Psalm 19 does lend support to the doctrine of inerrancy. You argue that the word should be “integrity” and that is not the same as “perfection,” so even though the law of the Lord has integrity, that doesn’t mean it’s not false or with errors.
“You can’t say for certain that its warm enough to go swimming because your thermometer doesn’t claim it is exactly 32 degrees Celcius.”
Regardless, I do appreciate your concern for accurate interpretation and application. So what is your exegetical support for the doctrine of inerrancy?
To Answer Bill, I think it was, Here are some things I believe:
One I believe Russell Dilday got it right in his 75 sermon Why I Believe the Bible and excerpt here:
Dilday also addressed the increasingly contentious issue of biblical inerrancy promoted by the parachurch Baptist groups with a Scripture citation: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” He opined:
That statement is sufficient. There is no need to propose some
man-made theory for the process of inspiration as orthodox…. Our
authority then is the sovereign God revealed through Jesus Christ,
communicated in his word, the Bible, and confirmed by Christian
experience. If anyone makes the Bible a legalistic catalogue of
orthodoxy, he tends to violate everything Jesus stood for while he
was in the flesh. (9)
I believe I read God’s Secretaries by Adam Nicolson, in fact I bought the book, about 5 years ago and I recommend James Wood’s reveiw in the New Yorker easily Googled up; and excellent book about the majesty of the King James Verson of the Bible.
I believe Hebrews 11:13 and if a friend didn’t need this computer right now, I’d quote it for you.
I believe Jesus Christ is my Saviour though I will be till I die a work in Progress.
I believe much of what Charles Kimball said about being rasied a Baptist in Oklahoma as giving him a lifetime of belief to sort through.
I believe in the Resurrection of the Just, and was a great moment for me to hear in the presence of my Father, now departed, and Randall Lolley at FBC Greenville SC a great sermon in 87 by the man who followed Martin Luther King, JR, at Ebenezer BC in ATlanta.
I believe the Word was made Flesh in Jesus Christ; and I also believe Fleming Rutledge a Woman does a great job preaching about such matters in her collection, Help my Unbelief.
Anything else you might want me to say right now I believe would be under duress.
God Bless you.
I also believe DAvid Rogers is mistaken in some of his convictions about BBQ and documentaries but that later.
Rick,
Though your last comment was not directed to me, I’m going to jump in here as well.
There is an interesting phrase in the last half of Psalm 138:2. I am not an expert in Hebrew, and I notice that different versions translate this differently, so I am going to paste here some of the different options:
KJV – “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”
NIV, ESV – “you have exalted above all things your name and your word.”
NASB – “You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.”
Amplified Bible – “You have exalted above all else Your name and Your word and You have magnified Your word above all Your name!”
Young’s Literal Translation – “Thou hast made great Thy saying above all Thy name.”
HCSB – “You have exalted Your name and Your promise above everything else.”
Whatever way you slice it, as I see it, we can never place God’s Word in a secondary position to His name (which, from a biblical perspective, stands for everything He is). I think the best explanation is we cannot separate God’s person and His character from His Word. They are all tied in together. In other words, if you truly focus in on Jesus, you will also focus in on His Word. There is the possibility, however, of focusing in on the Bible, in a dry, detached sort of way, that does not focus in on Jesus (cf. what I said to Bruce Harp in comment #106 related to John 5:39-40).
This, however, still leaves us with the question of determining what is truly God’s Word, and, if we are “correctly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). That is where textual criticism and hermeneutics come into play. But, as I have already said several times in this comment stream, if we don’t believe in an authoritative and inerrant text in the original autographs, why bother with textual criticism and hermeneutics? Why doesn’t everyone just “do what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25)?
Kevin Peacock,
I’ll let you have the last word on Psalm 19:7. Blessings to you.
Stephen:
Actually that question didn’t come from me but Volfan. I tried to italicize it but it didn’t work. The question was directed at me as well.
But I appreciate your answer.
Bruce,
From a person who has admittedly been skeptical of absolute certitude in my regard, your statements from 181 are admittedly a refreshing reminder of the complete conundrum found from folks who hold to your faith beliefs.
Rob
Rick, you said the following in #183:
“Additonally, Mike (Baptist Theolgue) said: ‘Many other people, however, did not lose their faith in the old cookbook.’ I notice that people were not placing their faith in the cooks who authored the book, but the book itself. . . . Sticking with Mike’s analogy, he said, ‘Some of the Italian words were difficult to translate, and some minor mistakes were made in the copying process that did not affect the outcome of the cooking process, but scholars utilized textual criticism to examine old manuscripts and made progress in moving current editions of the cookbook closer to the supposed perfection of the original book.’ At what point does a minor mistake in the translating/copying process result in an effect in the outcome? And how would we know? I think it is interesting that in critiquing higher criticism, Mike, you undermine the basis of your argument as the critics are getting to the ‘supposed perfection’ of the original. Yet inerrantists believe that the originals were perfect. It is interesting that those who make the loudest noise about the autographs being perfect are the same ones who criticize the higher critics for trying to reproduce as accurately as possible the original perfect text. Inconsistent much?”
Taking your last comment first, I think you are confusing textual criticism with higher criticism. Higher criticism questions the origins of a text. Textual criticism tries to determine what the original text said before errors in transmission occurred. Thus, inerrantists affirm textual criticism, but they do not affirm those higher critics that deny the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible.
As to my analogy, I admit that it is not perfect. Perfect analogies are impossible to find in regard to the Trinity and many other theological topics. I put “supposed perfection” to describe the cookbook, but in reality, only the Bible is perfect. I believe that other documents can be 100 percent correct, but I don’t think they can be perfect in the same sense that the Bible is perfect. The Bible goes beyond 100 percent correctness because its correct content was placed in various forms of literature that were perfect for the understanding of the intended audiences. I agree with every word of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, but I do not regard it as perfect in the same sense that the Bible is perfect. Various parts of the 2000 BF&M could be worded in better ways that would increase its clarity. Thus, the 2000 BF&M is absolutely correct in my opinion, but it is not perfect. As to putting faith in the cooks or the cookbook, I was comparing the 40 cooks to the 40 authors of the Bible, not to God. My analogy breaks down because there was no cooking god to inspire the cooks. Our faith is in God. We have surrendered our lives to Christ in repentance and faith. We do not worship the Bible. We are not making an idol of it.
P.S.: My analogy also did not contain anything akin to the illumination of the Holy Spirit. It is important to stress illumination and to understand the difference between illumination and inspiration, as I explained in comment #47:
“Inspiration is different from illumination. The Holy Spirit’s inspiration involved moving men to give God’s revelation: ‘For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ (2 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit’s illumination involves helping people understand the revelation received: ‘Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God’ (1 Corinthians 2:12). All the words in the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit. An author of a commentary on the Bible may have received illumination from the Holy Spirit. The words of the commentary, however, were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. The commentary is not the Word of God.”
I’d like to make an observation. I am in no way a textual scholar, but I did one day sit down with my UBS (critical) text and my copy of the “majority” text.
It is my opinion that the “we don’t have the originals” argument is WAY overstated. textual criticism can reproduce the originals to within about 99% certainty, and those places in which there is still real doubt are insignificant to our theology.
1) Yes, we do not have the autographa that we believe were inerrant.
2) But with the textual criticism we have, we can reproduce the original text to such a degree. Is the noun genitive or dative? Wow – my faith can survive while we wait for this issue to be settled.
We all have to be a little honest. Do we who believe in inerrancy have the inerrant autographs? No. But the arguments that those who attack inerrancy uses are often trite and contrived.
We have the Bible. Are there a few minor textual questions? Yes. But what God meant to reveal is still there clearly. And it is still trustworthy and true.
It is true in its physical descriptions.
It is true in its descriptions of the origins of mankind.
It is true in its history.
It is true in its theology.
It reveals the Jesus in whom we trust.
Criswell and Pressler also said The Bible was True in its Science and if you didn’t believe it the way they did you were an infidel and not worthy of Cooperative Program Dollars.
Which Raises the question why is the Lottie Moon offering raised by the WMU valid if the majority of the staff at Bham Hdqrtrs will not sign BFM 2000?
Mike, you are correct. Please excuse my carelessness in distinguishing between textual and higher criticism.
David, please don’t misunderstand me. Of the things in this world that are said to last forever, one is the souls of the redeemed and the other is the Word of God. That being said, there is nowhere that I recall in scripture where anyone who asked, “What must I do to be saved?” and they are directed to “Believe the Bible and you will have eternal life.” At best we are told to search the scriptures because they testify of Jesus Christ. The Word is a witness of the savior, it is not the savior. IMO, this is a world of difference that is sometimes forgotten by inerrantists.
Like Dave mentions, the “imperfections” in our tranlated/transmitted text are so insignificant that they matter not a whit to matters of the faith. This is why I wonder why certain inerrantists insist on a perfection in the autographs that the autographs don’t claim for themselves. I see no Bible author claiming for himself absolute grammatical, accounting, or narrative perfection. If anything, I see a lot of what we would consider in our modern, western, scientifically precise thinking, to be sloppy. Yet I do not believe the Biblcial authors were as concerned with the level of precision we seem obsessed with. This seems evidenced by the rather free way they quoted the OT either from the Septuagint, or by hermeneutical methods that would have brought us failing grades in college or seminary. Just try and create an allegory in any hermeneutics class like Paul did and see where it gets you.
I’d hate to see this die out before we reach 200.
As I’ve made clear, I don’t like the word inerrant. I don’t think it is a good word to use to describe the scriptures. I prefer trustworthy, for example. But whatever. I think people wrote the autographs just as God wanted them to.
I’d like to see the science that comes up with the claim that textual criticism yields modern bibles with 99% accuracy, but I also don’t have the credentials to gainsay that claim. I think the modern versions are close to the originals. How close I don’t know.
But I really do object to the idea that if the Bible isn’t inerrant (and our modern versions aren’t) then you can’t believe any of it. The claim is ridiculous on its face. It simply fails the tests of logic and common sense.
I have a statistics text on my shelf. I’m under no allusions that it is inerrant. Does that mean I can’t trust it? Of course not. The idea is absurd.
At this point I’m not arguing inerrancy/errancy. I’m appealing for decent debating skills and tactics.
Thank you, Bill.
This is exactly the point of my question. What is it about the weak faith of some that it requires a perfection that the Bible does not require of itself? Makes no sense to me to abandon one’s faith if it suddenly turned out that we’ve been using dative case all along when in the autograph it had been genitive.
More importantly, like you, I do not want to see this thread die before reaching 200 posts.
rick
Rick,
I don’t think we are coming from different perspectives here, but then, every now and then, you say something, like in the last paragraph of your comment #195, that leaves me wondering…
As I see it, it is not really about what any particular Bible author (other than God) claims for himself, nor even with whether they understood themselves to be writing the Word of God when they wrote what they wrote. It seems some were more conscious of this than others. Nor is it about different levels of precision reflected in different writing styles, cultural norms, etc.
What matters is that God has superintended the process in order to ensure that what He wanted us to receive of His Word through the Bible He has made available to us through the Bible. Regarding copying and translation discrepancies, we must assume that God did not consider those particular points on which there has been a lack of certainty of such an essential nature as to guarantee that everyone in every stage of history had access to 100% of the original. We will answer to God for what we did with the opportunities He afforded us. In our time, we have greater possibilities to be more exact in regard to textual criticism. We should strive to be the best stewards we possibly can with these possibilities.
It is important, though, that, even though we don’t believe in the dictation theory of inspiration, we do believe that God has actually revealed His will and His thoughts to us in written form, and that the Bible is not just a record of His revelation; it is, in and of itself, the revelation of God.
Bill,
In addition to what I say to Rick above, as I understand it, the bottom line issue, as Rob has ably pointed out in his post, is the issue of epistemology: Why do we accept one source of truth over another in what we choose to believe? Once I am convinced that something is an authentic word from God, and belongs in the Bible, I am not free to accept or obey 99% of it. I must submit to God’s Word 100%, or else, at some core juncture, I am not truly submitted to it. And, if I am not truly submitted to God’s Word, I am not truly submitted to God Himself.
Rick and Bill,
If God did not breathe out all the documents (2 Timothy 3:16), then we’ve got problems. It’s like opening Pandora’s box. Major doctrines (e.g., the sinfulness of homosexuality) come into question. We’re talking now about more than minor transmission errors that don’t affect major doctrines. We would then need an inerrant scholar to tell us which parts of the Bible are God-breathed. I don’t think such a scholar exists. If such a scholar were to be in existence, I don’t think everyone would accept his or her conclusions. Our sinful flesh is still with us. There would be a tendency to accept those passages that are convenient and to deny those passages that are inconvenient. (That has already happened when people have denied inerrancy.) The Bible then becomes a theological cafeteria–take what you want and ignore what you don’t want. It loses its authority. Of course, even with an inerrant Bible, we still disagree about interpretation of various passages, as this string of comments makes clear. The illumination of the Holy Spirit and a good system of hermeneutics are needed. The problem is not with the text; rather, the problem is with our flesh. The Holy Spirit illumines our minds so that we can eventually arrive at the proper interpretation of various texts. It takes time and patience on our part, but it is worth the effort.
Question: What bearing does Matthew 5:18 have on the discussion of inerrancy?
“I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
P.S.: David R. and David W., I will be contacting you guys about a date to go to Bozo’s Barbecue. Let’s again make it open to anybody who wants to come. There are a bunch of readers of this blog in West Tennessee. I talked to one of them this week who wants to eat with us.
Rogers statement about opportunities in our time for textual criticism is pregnant.
I think I will take it to Bl.com and see what juices I can elicit there and hopefully come back to it all when DAvid Rogers’ promised effort on the Conservative Resurgence appears on this board.
I do hope some of you will copy and paste in url line my tiny url in a post about 25 back on the tortuous journey of Adrian Rogers contemporary Bob Marsh and how he led his church in the 90′s 2nd Ponce de Leon, toward the light, away from the strictures of the CR; and did so out of conscience informed by the Scripture.
NO BBQ for lunch today; aiming toward little Cracker Barrel Friday Cod.
Andrew first, since he scored the 200th post: Hyperbole. Read it in the context of self-mutilation in the same sermon.
Mike, I think you are drawing a line precisely where it needs to be drawn – hermeneutics. First of all let’s put all the inerrantists in a room and then ask them questions on women’s role in the church, ordination of divorced pastors, or whether we should use (toying with a nuclear option here, so be careful everyone, we may get to 300 posts before the weekend is out) fermented wine in the Lords supper or as a common beverage. What will happen? You could have a room with only 2 Baptists in it and you’d STILL come out with 3 (or more) opinions, all “based on the Bible.”
For that matter, let’s say we have an inerrant Bible and we get a Baptist and a Church of Christer, both rabid inerrantists, in a room and ask them about a single word – eis – in Acts 2:38. What then?
I don’t see that an insistence on inerrancy solves the problems you identify. Does that mean I think inerrancy is unimportant? Hardly. It is just on brick in a very large wall of rightly dividing the word of God. But having a single good brick does not guarantee that the wall is going to be sound and the absence of a single bring does not guarantee that the rest of the wall is unsound. (Except that not all bricks are equal in importance, but that has already been covered in other posts)
David, what leaves you wondering about my last paragraph of my last post? If our beliefs about the Bible are based, in part, on the claims the Bible makes for itself, is it not right to point out what the Bible both claims about itself and also how it refers to itself? Can you be more specific?
Mike(BT), forgive me for thnking that you were Dr. Yarnell. lol. I dont know why I thought that. lol.
Bozo’s sounds good to me. I’ll sure can if I’m able.
Rick, the only way you and I can know God is thru His Word. Without the inerrant, infallible Word of God, we wouldnt be able to know God, about salvation, about atonement, etc. God is tied to His Word like fuzz on a peach. You cant have one without the other. Thus, to deny God’s Word, or to somehow try to insinuate that it’s less than perfect, is to put down God, Himself.
And, it’s still the truth…..if the Bible has errors, then we cant trust anything in it. We’re dead in our sins. We only have the grave to look forward to. There’s no hope of Heaven. And, all of us, who attend Church faithfully and try to live for Jesus are complete and utter idiots.
But, the Bible is true. God is perfect. God is the God of His Word, the Bible. Thus, our faith is in the sure and certain hands of the Lord Jesus.
David
Rick, you said:
“I don’t see that an insistence on inerrancy solves the problems you identify.”
Let’s take the issue of homosexuality. I don’t know of anyone who agrees fully with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy that says that homosexual acts are not sinful. There may be somebody like that, but I don’t know of anyone that fits that description. If two people who disagree about women in ministry are both inerrantists, then they have a common authority to which they will appeal, and their debate will center on biblical passages. I have debated (in a written format) a Church of Christ preacher (a friend of mine) on baptism and eternal security, and we didn’t change many minds, but we did center our debate on biblical passages. I think both of us learned from the debate, even though our beliefs on those doctrines did not change. When our interpretations on various passages are challenged by other inerrantists, it motivates us to study the relevant passages and seek the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and that is healthy. It also helps when we can maintain civility.
I’m about to head out to the adjacent county again. I’ll check back later.
Rick,
Thanks for the honor
Anywho, I found a commentary on the passage I brought up. I’m inclined to agree. Perhaps you should think about it before dismissing Jesus’ statement as hyperbole.
The phrase “truly I say to you” (NASB) or “I tell you the truth” (NIV) indicates that what follows is extremely important. “Until heaven and earth pass away” is a vivid way of saying as long as this world lasts. The AV “jot,” also translated “smallest letter” (NASB, NIV), refers to yod, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The “tittle” (AV) or “smallest stroke” (NASB) or “least stroke” (NIV) is not as easy to identify. The best possibility seems to be that it refers to a small stroke on one Hebrew letter (a serif) that distinguished it from a similarly shaped letter.289 In any case Jesus meant that He upheld the Old Testament down to the smallest features of the Hebrew letters that the writers used as they composed the original autographs.
This verse is a strong testimony to the verbal inspiration of Scripture. That is, divine inspiration extends to the words, even the letters, in the original texts. Verses 17-19 also argue for the plenary inspiration of Scripture, the view that inspiration extends to all parts of the Old Testament. God inspired all of it down to the very words the writers used. In verse 18 “the Law” refers to the whole Old Testament, not just the Mosaic Law or the Pentateuch (cf. v. 17). This is clear from the context.
God will preserve His Law until everything in it has happened as
prophesied.
http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/matthew.pdf
Stephen,
I can’t remember where I promised to post on the Conservative Resurgence. I’ve probably said about as much as I am interested in saying on that particular topic, here on this comment stream, as is. The past is the past. From time to time, I am willing to respond to questions asking my opinion on this aspect or that one. But, it is not one of the topics that really motivates me to blog. Sorry.
Rick,
Like I said at the beginning of my comment #198, I didn’t think we were in disagreement, but it kind of seemed like you, in your comment #195, may be leaving a door open for actual imperfections/inaccuracies in the original text itself. If you agree with what I say in #198, though, we really don’t have a difference on this, that I can tell. And, your point in #203 is well taken, though I also agree with BT Mike’s reply in #205.
Volfan: Are you inerrant? If not, how can we trust anything you say? Were you not created by God, and re-created by God? (note: I’m not arguing against inerrancy. Just your logic).
You say you cannot know God without the bible. But what about Abraham, Moses, Paul, etc? (again note, I’m not arguing against knowing God from the bible, just your statement)
I think we are hovering close to the edge of biblidolatry.
BTW: I agree with David Rogers. I think errors in transmission and translation are inevitable, but if God really cares about the bible, then He no doubt has taken steps to preserve it.
*sigh*
Mike, do we really need to go there?
You said, “Rick, the only way you and I can know God is thru His Word. Without the inerrant, infallible Word of God, we wouldnt be able to know God, about salvation, about atonement, etc. God is tied to His Word like fuzz on a peach. You cant have one without the other. Thus, to deny God’s Word, or to somehow try to insinuate that it’s less than perfect, is to put down God, Himself.”
First of all, I disagree that special revelation is the only way we can know God. I also believe we can learn from general revelation, prevenient grace, conscience, etc. The apostle Paul states that much of God can discerned from General revelation in Acts 17. Granted, much of God is revealed in the Bible, but if what you said is true – that we can’t be saved without the Word of God – it does make the eternal destiny of anyone who died before the closing of the canon problematic. Even moreso, what does this say for all those saved without special Revelation in the OT like Job prior to the testing, or Jethro? This puts you pretty far out on a very shaky limb.
Unless you are going to say that prior to the closing of the canon people were saved differently from today, but that’s a whole different can o’ worms.
Additionally, you conflate allowing for grammatical errors, accounting errors, and minor narrative irregularities with denying God’s word. No. I’m sorry, but that is flat wrong. I can say, “The Bible is the Word of God and is the very words that God wants us to have,” and at the same time say, “The words that God wanted us to have contain all sorts of ‘imperfections’ such as accurate reports of lies that are told, ill-timed and ill-informed advice in the book of Job, and accounts of God sending a lying spirit to confound people.”
In all fairness to you and the argument you represent, I would agree with you that…
A. If God’s word must be absolutely free of errors in order to be God’s word…
B. If an imperfection of any sort was found in God’s word…
C. Then it would not be God’s word.
However, I don’t grant your first premise that God requires absolute perfection in order for it to be his word. I see nothing in the Bible that requires such a standard. He spoke to Balaam through an ass, to David through a wind in the mulberry trees, to Jonah through a whale. So why do we think every single word in the text is absolutely perfectly to the highest degree possible? I don’t think such a standard is required in order to believe in “inerrancy” according to the Chicago statement.
So, when you say, “Thus, to deny God’s Word, or to somehow try to insinuate that it’s less than perfect, is to put down God, Himself,” you are not making a statement about the Bible itself or even about God Himself. You are proposing a doctrinal assertion regarding what you believe about the Bible and couching it in scary language that is intended to castigate those who differ with you. Not only that, you are insisting that if I want to consider myself a true worshipper of God, then I necessarily MUST share your belief about the nature of the Bible because according to your reasoning, there is no way I can know anything about God from a book that has minor non-critical discrepancies.
Please forgive me for not drinking this Kool-Aid.
Andrew,
Why do you think hyperbole in Mt. 5:18 is dismissive? Jesus uses it as an intensifier. If anything this passage speaks to a topic much larger and much more important than verbal plenary inspiration.
So do you take Jesus’ words regarding self-mutilation in v.29-30 of the same chapter literally or do you dismiss them as hyperbole? Your picture shows two intact eyes, so it seems obvious that it’s not a scripture you seem keen to practice.
rick
Rick, you said in #211:
“Mike, do we really need to go there? You said, ‘Rick, the only way you and I can know God is thru His Word. Without the inerrant, infallible Word of God, we wouldnt be able to know God, about salvation, about atonement, etc. God is tied to His Word like fuzz on a peach. You cant have one without the other. Thus, to deny God’s Word, or to somehow try to insinuate that it’s less than perfect, is to put down God, Himself.’”
I think you have me mixed up with David W. (volfan007). He said that in #204.
NT Wright on the Bible and Volfan on Lottie MOon
Reading a little NT Wright this afternoon on the nature of Scripture.
His latest says and I agree and to the extent I have fallen here in this discussion I plead guilty; he says all these arguments about inerrancy are a distraction.
I do wish Volfan would find his book and the rest of you as well.
He dismisses all this crock, though he understands how some Christians get caught up in the thicket of Inerrancy and Infallibity and the Chicago statement; he dismisses it all as worthless maneuverings.
I challenge yall to check him out; not hard to find at all; most Barnes and Noble stores prominently displayed.
Over at SBC Voices in his roundhouse assault on the WMU, Volfan says his Inerrant Bible teaches a Six Day Creation.
Straight forward question to DAvid Rogers.
Do you David Rogers hold fast to the six day creation; and or like Volfan like you do you think it is a test of inerrant bible and should be included in the BFM 2000 as litmus test for who should ascend in the SBC???
Stephen:
I think Vollie has issues with the WMU. All of those women trying to serve God. He just can not deal with that. They aint suppossed to do that. It is not in his inerrant Bible.
Stephen,
I’m not quite sure what a “roundhouse assault” is. But, I’m thinking maybe I should run to the roundhouse, where you can’t corner me.
In any case, science never was one of my best subjects in school. Neither have I dedicated a comparatively extensive amount of study to Genesis 1-2, and the interpretative issues involved. I have read some who argue in favor of a “gap” between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, and am not totally closed to that possibility. I have also read some, such as Hugh Ross, who have a very high view of Scripture, and believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but who also believe that a careful exegesis of Gen. 1 leaves room for non 24-hour days. I also see some exegetical problems with a literal 6-day, 24-hour-day, creation, with the first three days (evening and morning) coming before the creation of “the lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night” that were to “serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years” on the fourth day. And, I have read some who make a fairly convincing argument for the literary structure of Gen. 1 being semi-poetic (not sure if this is the best term), and thus, not intended to be taken literally. However, the fact that Adam and Eve are treated as literal people, with subsequent geneaology, combined with NT accounts of sin entering into the world through Adam, make it difficult, in my opinion, to take the Bible as totally trustworthy, and, at the same time, see Gen. 1-2 as nothing more than myth. Bottom line: I am open to some views other than a literal 6-day young earth creation, but not decided against it, either. And, I don’t think a 6-day young earth creation should be a litmus test for denominational service, though I do think views that take Gen. 1-2 as nothing more than myth would be beyond the bounds of acceptability, as they betray a basic lack of submission to biblical authority, to the degree I am able to understand, at present, the issues involved.
DAvid:
I think that brings us to an interesting place in the inerrancy aspect of this discussion in this thread
1) it looks like Vol Fan of this board and at SBC Voices; his roundhouse which is synonymous to throwing the kitchen sink; his roundhouse assault on WMU where he threw in the 6 day creation as key component of inerrancy throws a ringer here.
You follow him to his logical conclusion and all of a sudden in his book David Rogers is a liberal and doesn’t believe the Bible and is not in favor of a BFM 2000 that has teeth.
I fear what he may think about your view of women deacons.
Some of my links here in these threads haven’t been working and that is frustrating, but if you copy and paste my tiny url in this thread about Robert Marsh, I think you’ll finda link quite worth your time.
But that is a little beside the point.
Here is something from 2004 that gets to the heart of where we are now in this matter as it relates to recent news at Baylor, and their former administrator now at Mercer, Underwood, a Bible Believer who has thought through this Genesis matter pretty thoroughly; and though Bruce Gourley has bowwed out of this discussion; I think you may know Gourley to be an associate director of the Center for Baptist STudies at Mercer, hence his interest in the inerrancy matter and safe to say evolution and Genesis.
Marilynn Robinson believes that in Adam all have sinned, and we are fallen. I do too, but unlike your father, and maybe like Underwood though I have not asked him directly; with Robinson and I suspect Underwood you can have truth without fact in this matter.
Here I recommend NT Wright to you again, in regard revelation, the supernatural, and the Truth and Validity of Scripture.
The Baylor link of 2004 and maybe the Texas School Board history link to follow; making this Baptist squabble again very significant for the direction of education for everyone in America.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/12/professing-faith
Oh, to tie my first entry in this thread about 215 posts ago, about Criswell and his 1956 speech to joint session of the SC legislature, want to bring this fact to your attention.
Just yesterday Donald Simms was named the Socon basketball player of the year.
We all have stories but maybe some day I can tell you how that one is of biblical proportions to my own pilgrimage and why the Criswell speech was of no small importance.
Bill,
Moses and Abraham and Noah all had direct revelation from God. He spoke to them. God speaks to us today from His Word. Thus, without the Bible, we would never know God, nor would we know His way of salvation. We would not know about His Son, Jesus, nor would we know of His atoning death. There’s no idolatry there. For you to suggest such is silly.
Tom,
I have utmost respect for women, and I appreciate greatly all the service that godly women do for the Church and God’s Kingdom. Also, I’m all for women raising money for missions. So, what in the world are you talking about?
Stephen, Stephen, Stephen, I will not play your silly, little games. I know what you’re doing. You know what you’re doing. I refuse to play. Find someone else to tinker with. You will answer to God for what you do.
Hug and Kisses,
David
David, RE: to #209
I like these sections of the Chicago Statement:
Article XIII.
WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
Article XIV.
WE AFFIRM the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
WE DENY that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.
Point being: Just because we call it an error or think it’s an error or simply don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it’s really an error. I don’t believe “perfection” to the authors in ancient times and in an agrarian setting means the same as it does to an analytical scientific society such as ours.
Mike, RE: #213 – You are correct. I did mean David. (Not to be confused with David, since we know they write with different accents.)
David, RE: #218 – God did not speak directly to the vast majority of people in the OT and there were hundreds of years of silence when we have no record of God speaking at all. If salvation is only found in God’s word, how did people to whom God didn’t speak directly or have a complete Bible get saved?
Rick,
Gotcha. Looks like we agree, after all.
Fourteen trustees dismissed this morning over Inerrancy and related matters according to Chronicle For Higher Education; in SC
Fourteen trustees dismissed at Erskine College it appears cause concepts like Inerrancy have taken hold and the place been turned over to the students.
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Church-Fires-14-Trustees-at/21613/
Stephen:
Inerrancy continues to create casualties–human beings lives ruined over one word. How did we ever get to this point? Me thinks the desire for absolute (CONTROL) or (we’ve go the votes or we will bus them in) if necessary.
Anyone who was a casualty over inerrancy got exactly what they deserved. If they’re not willing to affirm a basic, foundational, biblical doctrine and all Christians recognize to be true losing a job is the minimum that should happen.
My comment above should say “…that all Christians…” rather than “…and all Chrisitians…”. I should add that only mainstream/moderate christians deny inerrancy whereas all Christians affirm it.
Rick,
Here is what I said in #207:
“Anywho, I found a commentary on the passage I brought up. I’m inclined to agree. Perhaps you should think about it before dismissing Jesus’ statement as hyperbole.”
I was responding to what you said:
“Hyperbole. Read it in the context of self-mutilation in the same sermon.”
I had asked how people felt the Matthew passage fit in with the discussion of inerrancy. You simply responded, “Hyperbole.” What does a one-word answer add to the conversation? How does a one-word answer explain the relation of the passage to inerrancy? You didn’t explain yourself at all, and you still haven’t. I can understand if you don’t see plenary inspiration there, but I do believe that it is supported by the passage. “Hyperbole” neither explain’s what Jesus meant nor does it refute the idea of plenary inspiration. So I was not dismissing Jesus’ statement, you were. If you really think that I was dismissing Jesus’ statement, you need to go back and read what I wrote again.
About gouging out your eye, I don’t take it as only “hyperbole,” and dismiss the passage, but rather Jesus is showing how important it is that we “cut” sin out of our lives. So when it says that not even an “iota” will disappear, I don’t take it to mean that the autographs still exist somewhere or that the Bible has been perfectly preserved in all transmissions and translations. But I do believe the passage highlights the idea of plenary inspiration, and as others have said, it gives a strong reason for textual criticism to find out as best we can what the originals said.
I’m sure you didn’t mean it, but your statement, though obviously intending to show error, accuses me of being hypocritical since I still have both my eyes. I don’t appreciate that.
I now know what “yatta-yatta-yatta” means from the Sienfeld Show!
Let’s get back to the basics of finding God!
Check out this website: http://islam.about.com/cs/jesus/f/jesus_birth.htm
It is a beginning of an interesting conversation I had with a man from the Middle east who is a Moslim, yet is seeking to know more about our relation as believers in Jesus to his as an intelligent and open-minded Moslem.
I was welcomed to his world because I refused to take the attitude that “We have it all and any others are doomed to Hell.”
I think we will always have more opportunity to bear witness to the Lordship of Christ if we keep our perfection of belief and scripture under control.
Dispite all your rhetoric, I remain unconvinced the CR ideas are the answer to all the problems of theology to be found in the world.
Remember: “Theology” literally means “knowledge of God.” I don’t think we will ever know everything there is to know about God. Any man who thinks he has arrived in “knowing God” bears witness to the fact he has tried to put God into a bottle where He will never fit!!!!
Andrew,
Sorry I didn’t connect the dots for you.
Jesus’ statement in Mt.5:18 is in the context of other statements he made in Mt.5-7 in the passage commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount (SOTM). This message is widely known to contain a wide rage of figures of speech.
Mt.5 in fact includes a fair number of examples of hyperbole defined by Bullinger as, “when more is said than is literally meant” (1968, p. 423) which we commonly refer to as “exaggeration.” It is often used as an intensifier in order for a phrase to carry more meaning than the surface level of the words themselves. My kids use hyperbole all the time when they indiscrimately use absolutes of “everyone” and “always” to add weight to their arguments.
In Mt.5, Jesus uses hyperbolic speech to emphasize contrasts. The religious leaders of his day were prone to excuse “light” sins while condemning heavy sins. For instance, they would say that murder is a capital offense. Jesus says that the root of murder is anger and to speak in anger or ill-will to someone is similarly worthy of being brought before the judgment council. Additionally, since lust is the root of adultery (a stoning offense), Jesus says to pluck out eyes or chop off hands rather than to offend in even the least of sins. Note the pattern of taking the “lightest” sin possible and attaching the heaviest judgment against it in hyperbolic juxtaposition.
While I appreciate your commentator’s insistence on verbal (and presumably plenary) inspiration, I believe he does a serious disservice to the passage by suggesting that inspiration is the issue under consideration that Jesus is trying to address. It isn’t. In fact, I cannot find anywhere in the Bible that the inspiration of the Scriptures is a question the prophets or disciples even try to answer. At best, it is mentioned in passing. So for a modern author to suggest that Jesus is addressing an issue of inspiration is a gross projection on the historical issues that mattered most to first century disciples.
So what does Mt.5:18 speak to? It is a hyperbolic statement in the midst of a hyperbolic passage that addresses his relationship to the Torah. Let’s look at the context, shall we?
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Note the contrasts here:
Abolish the Law v. Live the Law to the Full
Heaven and Earth v. iota and dot
Least commandment v. least in kingdom
Do & Teach least commandment v. Greatest in Kingdom
Your righteousness v. Righteousness in excess of the Pharisees
In a word, this is not a statement about verbal inspiration. It is a hyperbolic declaration that the world may be destroyed, but God’s word will not before it is fulfilled.
Hope that helps. Sorry for my parsimony earlier.
rick
NT Wright for Presley
and http://www.differentbookscommonword.com for Gene and his new Friend.
Not sure what you mean by that, Stephen. Is that suggested as a corrective?
Fed up with Fundamentalism new book by Leroy Treat.
Give it a look see
http://www.llumina.com/store/fedupwithfundamentalism.htm
Some here represent, not conservative, but an ultra-conservative-fundamentalist position.
I would describe myself as a middle-of-the-road person who is saying “there might be more than one road to God who is not limited by man’s narrowness.”
A Liberal would be saying:
(1) Who really cares
(2) Prove it under a microscope
(3) God is a fantasy of man’s imagination
(4) No writing of any religion is anything other than man’s speculation
(5) Plus some other super “no faith required” stuff
What I am clearly encouraging is that we look at both the Bible and the Koran with an open mind. Since we find the same people such as Abraham being the father of both Moslums and Jews / Jesus and Mary / etc., God could be in all religions in some fashion.
I am personally confident I have placed my personal faith that Jesus is the Christ, and died for my sins, and rose again so that I might have eternal life.
I am not confident God is condemning anyone else to eternal punishment, especially if they never even had a chance to hear of Jesus, the Christ. If you are one of God’s creations, I believe he has broad enough shoulders to bear you to be with him when you leave this earth.
I know I am going to Heaven. I’m hoping my view of a broader-hearted Creator God is accurate. I’ll gladly tell my faith witness whenever and wherever I can. There are people on this earth who have religions as an innate part of their culture (never read of any society without a religious element), but they will never meet a believer in Christ through no fault of their own.
And for those not willing to toss the baby out with the bath water, see: http://www.ill-legalism.com/whatstolike.htm
rick
Rick,
No need to connect the dots for me. I think my earlier statement in comment #225 shows I understand the concept of hyperbole and its use in the passage:
“About gouging out your eye, I don’t take it as only “hyperbole,” and dismiss the passage, but rather Jesus is showing how important it is that we “cut” sin out of our lives.”
As for the commentator, I can’t really attest to what he believes beyond what he wrote there, but I don’t think you’ve captured his idea when you say, “I believe he does a serious disservice to the passage by suggesting that inspiration is the issue under consideration that Jesus is trying to address.”
Here is what he said about the passage, “In any case Jesus meant that He upheld the Old Testament down to the smallest features of the Hebrew letters that the writers used as they composed the original autographs.”
I would agree with you that the passage is not primarily trying to address plenary inspiration, but I do believe the passage highlights the idea of plenary inspiration, and as others have said, it gives a strong reason for textual criticism to find out as best we can what the originals said. I can understand if you don’t see plenary inspiration there, but I do believe that it is supported by the passage.
A biblical passage wouldn’t have to specifically have plenary inspiration be the issue under consideration to still lend support to the idea. That is how we get the doctrine of the Trinity. We don’t believe that the Trinity was the issue under consideration that Jesus was trying to address at the end of Matthew. Yet we still use that passage to support the doctrine of the Trinity.
Andrew, I’m not sure what you are intending in your interchange with me.
In #225, you said, ““Hyperbole” neither explain’s what Jesus meant nor does it refute the idea of plenary inspiration. So I was not dismissing Jesus’ statement, you were. If you really think that I was dismissing Jesus’ statement, you need to go back and read what I wrote again.”
In what way was I dismissing Jesus statement?
You also said in the same post, “But I do believe the passage highlights the idea of plenary inspiration, and as others have said, it gives a strong reason for textual criticism to find out as best we can what the originals said.”
OK. But where have I argued against textual criticism? The word “but” is a conjunction that indicates a contrast. I’m wondering what it is about what I’ve said that inclines you to believe is in contrast to what you’ve written?
You close that post with, “I’m sure you didn’t mean it, but your statement, though obviously intending to show error, accuses me of being hypocritical since I still have both my eyes.”
My intent was to illustrate your familiarity with hyperbole in the same passage so the same hermeneutical approach is applied to Mt.5:18.
And in #233 you say, “I can understand if you don’t see plenary inspiration there, but I do believe that it is supported by the passage.”
Once again, I’m not sure what you are arguing against. I don’t believe I have even hinted at making an attempt to undermine plenary inspiration. I have affirmed that the Bible as we have it is what God intends us to have. Nor did I state that plenary inspiration was absent from the passage. I did state that inspiration of the Scriptures was not the primary emphasis Jesus was making. At the risk of being tedious, I will repeat that I do not believe our modern argument of inspiration was an idea that concerned the Biblical authors since they devote so little time addressing it. I’m not the least convinced that they would define it in the terms that we use. Instead they speak of God speaking at various times and in different manners in times past – a far broader acceptance of the varieties of revelation than we seem to accept. If I understand the book of Hebrews correctly the final revelation of God is the person of Jesus Christ whose life serves as the interpretation of the OT.
rick
Rick,
Supposed silence of the biblical writers on a particular subject (such as “inspiration”) or even lack of “primary emphasis” placed upon a subject is not an affirmative argument for/against in my opinion (an argument “from silence”). The lack of discussion by the writers could very be that the concept was already clearly understood by them. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Yet would you agree or disagree that the culture of which Jesus was a part would affirm the Torah as dispositive toward the practice of homosexuality? Jesus said nothing because He had already spoken – enough said – bigger fish to fry. The same could be said about your argument here. Little or nothing said about “inspiration” could very well be the community accepted it without it being said. Certainly the Torah speaks harshly against those who would prophecy in the Lord’s name without 100% accuracy and affirmatively to those who did (See Deuteronomy 18: 15-22). Could it be the community accepted implicity the inspired words of those who passed the test?
Rob
To all:
I have already placed a warning about posts that want to revisit the Conservative Resurgence (See #99). With the knowledge that many of you sleep on the subject and allow it to haunt your days is a bit of a concern. As I have allowed a continued theme to be repeated over and over again ad nauseum even over my warnings is my bad. I guess my personal response to it all is this: many posts by certain individuals shows the complete necessity of why such an action was necessary – although often times the vitriol of some responses to those posts seem to me to be mean spirited. Be that as it may, here is my promise to all of you: I will delete any post that refers to the CR, and any response in response to said post. See #99 for my thoughts as to your future actions/reactions on the matter. If anyone has a thoughtful reaction to my article, or reaction to others reaction, then by all means let us continue. That is the purpose of this website (I should know – I was one of those who helped develop the purpose statement – you do not have to go far with authorial intent – I am it.)
Rob
Rob, I could have a bad case of the Monday’s here but like Andrew and Stephen, I’m not sure what prompted your response.
I agree that arguments from silence neither sustain an issue nor support being against an issue. What I did say was, “At the risk of being tedious, I will repeat that I do not believe our modern argument of inspiration was an idea that concerned the Biblical authors since they devote so little time addressing it. I’m not the least convinced that they would define it in the terms that we use.”
What I mean by that is that outside of the Chicago Statement, which I which I am quite comfortable by the way, there are many who would make a case for “inerrancy” that fails to account for the breadth of literary styles and author concerns at the time the book was written.
For instance, Stephen quotes a commentator who says, “In any case Jesus meant that He upheld the Old Testament down to the smallest features of the Hebrew letters that the writers used as they composed the original autographs.” I don’t think that’s what Jesus meant at all. I think he meant that in contrast to a perishable world, the declarations of God are immovable and unshakeable until they are all fulfilled. I believe Jesus was using a hyperbolic device to emphasize the steadfastness of God’s laws. I think the author wishes to find affirmation for verbal, plenary inspiration and so he sees it in this text.
This does not mean I dis-believe in verbal inspiration or that the Bible cannot be used to articulate a statement of inspiration such as the Chicago Statement. However, I don’t see how weak hermeutics supports a doctrinal position.
As to what the community accepted on the subject of inspiration, I think that is a vital topic worth exploring, particularly in light of the assembling and approval of the canon.
Rick,
I suspect the problem may be a combination of Monday
and your aversion to the term “literal”.
How about “Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said?”
Rob
I would agree with that, Rob.
Now all you need to do is agree with me on what Jesus meant.
And it isn’t an “aversion” to the word literal. It is a grammarians concern with it’s proper use.
However, for bibliolatry purposes there are two uses. One is to say (often rather casually and imprcisely) “I take the Bible literally” to express a belief that the Bible speaks to actual historical events and figures. The other is to distinguish between literal language and figurative language. In this sense I can believe in a literal Jesus who spoke a literal Sermon on the Mount, but spoke figuratively about the word of God. Nor should you mistake me for believing that Jesus had a low view of scripture (as the modern higher critics) but rather that Jesus had such a high view of scripture that literal language was inadequate to convey his true feelings and so he spoke in figures of speech to convey MORE meaning than is intended in mere literal language.
Does that help clarify? Basically, I’m a fan of Bullinger and would recommend a thorough study of his very literal treatment of figures used in the Bible.
rick
And on review, my teeth are set on edge by the improper use of “it’s” instead of “its” for the possessive.
Aaarrrgghhhh.
Off to rend my garment in shame now.
Its a shame that you don’t know how to use a word in it’s proper form.
Its even worse when I do and forget it’s proper application!
Its even worse when I do and forget it’s proper application!
I don’t mind other people misusing its/it’s. But when I do it, I cringe.
It is a burden being grammatical in this grammatically challenged world. I’m a little OCD about grammar and end up getting irked a lot!
I doubt Adrian Rogers or his son DAvid would have a problem with Duke Chaplain Will Willimon’s sermon here on The Cross.
Seems little out of school for Joe Blackmon to dismiss a fellow out of hand who preaches so strongly on the Cross.
Andrew has asked that Joe take his concerns with Inerrancy and the Duke Chaplain here; so I’m just trying to find a Home for this discussion.
Hope all of you will take a look at this eloquent preaching here of which Willimon testifies he bears witness.
Who else will join Blackmon in his condemnation of this Preacher of the Gospel???????
Willimon on The Cross of Jesus
http://willimon.blogspot.com/2010/03/preaching-and-cross.html
This is amazing!
I have been working for 3 days to make a living and remove more than dangerous dead trees in a swampy neighborhood.
It was so bad me and 2 ground men were praying for the climber and working hard to support him. This man, who despises pretense religion, roped off to good live trees and climbed 2 which were so bad as to be the perfect description of “widow maker.”
We had to put straps and chains around one to keep it from separating with the weight of the climber. The other could be pulled apart in strings of rotted wood half way up.
Yet, more by the grace of God than human skills, we got the trees down without getting killed or hurt–and we didn’t damage the building and fence or swing underneath them!
In the meantime, you guys have been splitting theological hairs ad nauseum!
Now here are my questions: If my “sick-and-tired of church pretense” climber read this post, would he be convinced he is wrong???
If a Moslem believer read what started as a post on the relationship of Christians and other cultures, would he waste another minute on such hair splitting?
Here was our start:
Here is my question. How does Hebrews 11 and Romans 10:17 affect each and every one of these issues beyond our individual perception? Does God give us a stated truth in Scripture which we accept and receive by faith an answer to each? Or are there many “truthful” answers that one can accept within individual or cultural differences through our own reason and experience that could be acceptable to God?
Personally, I think the Holy Spirit is alive and well–and leads us to love and peace–while our hair splitting theology is driving people crazy and making us sometimes hate one another!
Note to the moderators: While I admit the posts I had removed were out of line, I am just curious. Does the following
Does God give us a stated truth in Scripture which we accept and receive by faith an answer to each? Or are there many “truthful” answers that one can accept within individual or cultural differences through our own reason and experience that could be acceptable to God?
which is one of numerous times Gene has flat out said there are many ways to come to God acceptible? I mean, seriously? It’s ok for him to suggest that Christ is not the only way to God?
Joe–
What you are addressing is the statement made by the original post (which is not my statement).
I am saying: Personally, I think the Holy Spirit is alive and well–and leads us to love and peace–while our hair splitting theology is driving people crazy and making us sometimes hate one another!
Anyone interested in a nice treatment on the authorship of Genesis?
http://www.biblical-literacy.com/lessons/old-testament-survey/genesis-authorship-issues/
I think it answers some of the objections to inspiration raised in this thread. Also, it makes me wonder if “verbal” inspiration, i.e. the very words themselves were inspired in the original autographs if at least some of the autographs are compilations from oral tradition or even if the autograph isn’t really completely an autograph in the strictest sense, like Daniel 4. Which is the original autograph in that case – Nebuchadnezzar’s confession of faith or Daniel’s transcription of it?
No doubt Joe that what Gene says is not Historical Biblical Christianity – but a blended hodge-podge of this and that – more akin to Hinduism and its moniker “many paths to God.” He has made God and the Holy Spirit in his own image of personal palatability, and rejects the Scriptural revelation of what God is – a God of both grace, love with justice AND wrath. This picture of Scripture I have Gene is not templated from the BF&M 2000, 1963, ad nauseum. Scripture without all the choreographed gymnastics that you desire to put it through merely says what it says.
What is disconcerting Joe is that it is certainly troublesome to these disciples of Hick and the Jesus Seminar that God would send anybody to a place of wrath – so why not say that God is found in every faith system of belief – “The Real” as Hick says (which is exactly what Hinduism calls Brahman)? So Joe, when we say what the Scripture actually says, they are merely projecting their uncertainties on us by calling us judgmental and hateful.
Problem: The image of “God” in every religion/faith system that are known today are diametrically different from the other often by football field lengths apart. As an instructor/professor of sociology/philosophy/religion (humanities) I can plainly speak this truth: All religions (and each “object of faith” in each) are not the same. The law of non-contradiction comes then to play: A does not equal non-A. They cannot all be true. For example, the God of Islam is not the God of Christianity. By the way, Gene – how do you get around the fact that the Q’ran is considered by most Muslims to be the VERY WORD of God? In 7th Century Arabic?
So Joe, to answer your question: I allow Gene to go on to illustrate the starkness of our positions, as well as a reminder “this is where we were heading.” The life example of some is to be an example for all of us not to go down the same path they have tread – it only leads to heartache, bitterness and misery and ultimatly to destruction – “Thus says the Spirit.”
Gene, you know what the truth is. What has happened would be conjecture. Our problem in my opinion can be settled by a modified “Pascal’s Wager.” If you are right, I have lost nothing – the God of all faiths will accept my particular problems with exclusivity with the grace and charm I am sure as he accepts all faiths who through the darkness try to find “God.” If I am right, you and others you have lead will be in darkness before the one who proclaimed to Moses, “You will have no other God’s before me.”
Rob
Rob–
You seem to be an intelligent and less beligerent version of Joe, to me!
Now, let me observe from my psychological training that you both seem to have a faith hiding behind a great barrier of fear that someone else might be right and you might be wrong!
Right or wrong are of less importance to me than allowing God be big enough to love and forgive his created beings who have not had the priviledge of hearing about his only begotten Son (monogeneo). What if God uses in his judgment the fact you might be hard-hearted and cruel to those not totally agreeing with you??? Is having no love in your heart just as bad as being openly hate-filled?? See I Cor. 13 and Matthew 23!
Here is a mantra I have given to many people for pondering:
The opposite of faith is NOT doubt—The opposite of faith is Absolute Certainty!
I have done something I have not done on this blog before.
I have “unapproved” two posts.
I have done so not for s