Evangelicals and the Problem of Scripture

For those of you who have suffered through my various cryptic Facebook and twitter posts, well, the time has come. In this post, I will be highlighting the issues and questions surrounding the inerrancy debate within evangelicalism. In thinking through this important (but not essential issue), I’ve been pouring over the multitude of lectures on Youtube. Mostly stuff by The Gospel Coalition and Together 4 the Gospel, including a recent conference held by John MacArthur focused exclusively on inerrancy. As it may not yet be obvious, I have profound disagreements with TGC and T4G and John MacArthur on a multitude of issues and a multitude of attitudes, but I consider them to be brothers in Christ, and so on and so forth. It is simply a matter of common courtesy as far as I am concerned, at least from me to them.

In listening to these various lectures, which include mainstays such as Kevin DeYoung, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Carl Trueman, Michael Horton, and others [1], I was struck by the repeated emphasis on the inerrancy of Scripture as a foundational position for the Christian faith.  This, they said repeatedly, lay at the heart of Christian faith.[2] One, I forget who exactly, said that if he found one error, he would cease preaching the Gospel.

I was struck both by his honesty and his rigidity. I recall a friend saying roughly the same thing, and I proceeded to tell him that he was no longer an inerrantist. Confused, he asked why; I pointed him to the longer ending in Mark (16:9-20), and asked him why this was still in Scripture even though we know it was not in the original text. Dumbfounded, he sputtered for a second and I then told him, “Its okay. It isn’t an error in transmission as much as it is a problem with translation. Sal’ good, mate.” But the question lingered. I also wrote a bit about the story in John 7:52-8:11:

Various modern English translations confirm in footnotes that John 7:53-8:11 is an interpolation. The CEB notes that “critical editions of the Gk New Testament do not contain 7:53-8:11” and the NRSV supports this with “most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.” Metzger explains that John’s pericope is missing from the “most early and diverse manuscripts” (Metzger, 187). There are external factors besides its manuscript omission: early church fathers don’t quote it until the twelfth century, showing a lack of awareness of the text in question (Metzger, 188) and that it also appears in multiple locations through John’s Gospel as the NRSV footnote states. This shows that scribes were uncertain about its placement within the narrative. The text’s addition may have been due to a scribe’s belief in the truthfulness of the account, and because of this they had little issue in trying to place it within the narrative. Coupled with this, the story is moving and shows Jesus in a consistent and compassionate light (c.f. his interactions with the unmarried Samaritan woman in John 4). After all, Metzger acknowledges, “the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity” (Metzger, 188) as a self-contained story. It may have happened, but John in his original Gospel did not include it.

It is not my intent to point to the various problems within Scripture—and I’m leaving a gaping hole right there with the word “problems”—but rather to try and steer the conversation towards a more fruitful dynamic.

A key question I have begun to ask about this question is this: “so what?” My long-suffering wife will attest to this, as I kept her up for a night, using this question as a guide to further my post-workout ramblings.

Scripture is inerrant. So what? So is a spelling book, or a scientific textbook that points out what the sky is blue. So what? I don’t consider the color of the sky to be a particularly moving or insightful key into how I worship God. The sky, after all, could be red or purple in your world. A fact does not necessitate authority. The fact of the sky being blue in my world does not factor at all into instigating an authoritative response.

Scripture is inspired. So what? Joseph Smith claimed he was inspired. So have many people in this world, including many cultic figures. The Koran could be inerrant; almost all Christians would, however, not choose the Koran as their supreme authority in faith and practice. The standard proof text for inerrancy/inspiration/authority is 2 Tim. 3:16, with the hapax legomenon θεόπνευστος occurring in relation to πᾶσα γραφὴ. God “breathed” all Scripture. Gordon Fee notes, “in doing so, [Paul] is not offering a theory of inspiration; he is, rather, reflecting the common tradition of Judaism (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21).”[3] Church fathers (Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia) do not seem to specify if this is directed toward the Old Testament (what Paul usually means by γραφὴ), and the second question in this little question has to do with aspect: given that the canon debate has been largely settled by the time they are writing, are the Fathers justified in including both Testaments in this if they do so? Most likely, Paul is writing about the Old Testament and not his own epistles, which is the opposite of what many modern theologians seem to assert. This—again—is not to undermine inerrancy conceptually, but to push us towards a better framework. Or attempt to frame a better framework. It is indeed getting late now. 

2 Tim. 3:16—according to historical-grammatical rules of interpretation set out by ICBI—cannot be interpreted in the manner most ICBI users desire. Simply stringing along biblical words like, well, "word" will not help matters, nor will reductionistic propositions like "God does not lie," etc.

It seems to me, in speaking about Paul, that he assumed his own authority as an apostle of the risen Christ, and this gave him insight and power to, say, excommunicate a man “having” (ἔχειν) his stepmother (1 Cor. 5:1-5). He also believed he had the authority "to command” (ἐπιτάσσειν: present active infinitive: 1:8) Philemon to free Onesimus, especially because he is “having boldness in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων). Paul’s authority seems to come from his relationship to the risen Jesus, and this determines how he acts towards fellow brothers and sisters. His authority comes from seeing the risen Jesus, thus confirming the Gospel of God: the resurrection of the dead, found only in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15).

Scripture and her multitude of authors—Paul, the Psalter, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, First/Second/Third Isaiah, Peter and the epistles written in his name—all seem to assume their own authority in their own inspired way, not on the basis of their own infallibility or inerrancy, but rather on what has been revealed to them. They know they are broken, violent, rash people. It seems, instead, that we ought to focus on the nature of what it means to have an authoritative text that speaks into our lives and informs our faith and practice. Peter not writing 2 Peter does not diminish the authority of 2 Peter; rather, it contextualizes it and forces us to re-conceive of how we read 2 Peter in light of the Gospels and in light of the history of canon.

Given the nature of pseudepigraphy in the New Testament (something I am assuming for the sake of argument), how is inerrancy to respond to fairly convincing arguments that Paul did not write Ephesians and the Pastorals, and that Peter did not write 2 Peter? If these are true, what then of inerrancy? These texts and their authorship would not challenge something as crucial as the resurrection of Jesus. So perhaps our focus is a bit askance.

The Koran could be error-free. The Koran could be inspired in some sense. However, having both does not give it a lick of authority over my life and how I practice as an evangelical Christian.

So it seems we should conceive of a more evangelical method of interpretation of Scripture, one that pays true attention to the details of disparate authors and contexts, and one that actually treats the text with full authority in our lives and in the lives of others.

Beyond “so what”, why does Scripture have authority in my life, your life, and the Church’s life? I will offer three short theses as to why I consider Scripture to be fully authoritative in my life and why this discussion needs to happen.

1. Scripture most often is confirmed by history and by the methods and philosophy of history. Hidden within this is my own assumption that the world is an odd place and odd things can happen – like a man dying and rising from the dead, revealing Jesus Christ to be the Messiah he said he was. If this is historically true, then this whole resurrection thing means my life is more than a blip on this pale blue dot.
    
2. The ethics of the New Testament—especially in Paul—regarding women and slaves and poverty are so progressive that the church seems unable to keep up with him. The fact that Paul goes against so much of his ancient patriarchal culture means something is up, and that he had a radical shift in thinking—based on his experience with the risen Jesus.
    
3. My own experience is confirmed and challenged by Scripture. In struggling with sexual sin ever since I was eight years old, Scripture has repeatedly challenged me to improve and repent and grow and mature; it has confirmed that my experience was hollow and grim, and has shown me a better Way. In changing my habits and mind, I've seen tremendous growth and you probably have too. That would not be without the challenge of my wife and Scripture.

I do not claim to have this figured out, and it is highly likely I could embrace inerrancy in the future. I am reading through several works and delving back into the Gospels before this quarter begins, and my friend Jarrod has been pushing Vanhoozer down my ear for the past few weeks, so it is entirely possible.

But, for the sake of intellectual honesty and for the sake of the future of our Catholic Church, concern yourselves with the authority of the text first. That seems to be where the main rub is. If fully authoritative, how then do you live? If not, what then?

*Nick reserves the right to change his mind if he thinks he has written something dumb*
 
In Christ,
NQ

[1] It goes without saying that I disagree with all of these scholars when it comes to the ordination of women, the extent of the value of Reformed readings of Scripture, the genre of Genesis, and a whole host of other more interesting topics. This, of course, it not due to any level of disrespect I have towards these men, but because a theological degree or three does not make a man or woman free.

[2] I was also bemused and dismayed by their repeated comments about Fuller Theological Seminary and the seminary’s history with inerrancy; rather than engage, they dismissed and moved on. See George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism.

[3] Gordon D. Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 279.

Should Evangelicals Assume Inerrancy when Doing Theology?

I confess to being on the fence regarding the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. But now, let me be clear: this is not because I am at Fuller Theological Seminary, or that I’m an Egalitarian, or because of any other doctrinal commitments. No other doctrine has prompted me to reconsider the doctrine of inerrancy. In fact, I have very little interest in affirming or denying the doctrine. For many people (bless you all), this is reason enough to shut down this tab and move on; more power to you.

For the others who did not shut down the tab, I pose the question: should evangelicals assume inerrancy when doing theology? This isn’t a sustained case for or against the doctrine of inerrancy, just some musings and personal reflections.

I should get some things out on the table: I am uncertain that Paul wrote 1-2 Timothy and Titus and Ephesians. I also think it is more likely that there are at least two parts to Isaiah. In reading about these textual and theological difficulties, I have not once considered the implications for my thoughts on inerrancy.

In doing theology, inerrancy has not mattered in any substantive way. In fact, I wonder if one could affirm a doctrine of inerrancy and affirm non-Pauline authorship of certain epistles. I tend to think the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. But this is an aside, much like this post as a whole. So moving on.

Inerrancy, then, has not factored in my theology or research. Should it? I offer these two thoughts in response:

No. Because I’m not convinced one should be considering secondary issues when doing research. The research should yield fruit, not uproot a tree in search of ghosts.

No. Because the diversity of Scripture should not cause evangelicals (like myself) to rush to systematize. We should first let the options and viewpoints stand.

So I think my perspective has been to simply let Scripture stand and say what She needs to say, regardless of my thoughts on other doctrines, authors or matters. Paul is not John, John is not Paul. Do they line up? Should they?

Then one gets into the discussion about what constitutes an actual error or contradiction. A conversation that seems as helpful a discussion as a car made out of biscuits. Rather, one should assign immediate authority to the author or text that one is researching before bringing in other authors or texts to supplement or, even, correct. Or should they?

I suppose these thoughts are too scattered to be of much help. I’m still working through them myself and this post is is coming in between my Greek homework and casual exegesis. Still, in not having a doctrine looming over my shoulder, I’ve been able to simply take the text as what it appears to say and let it stand in the middle of the room, like the great, authoritative elephant that Scripture is.

Then again, do we conflate authority with inerrancy? Not going to open that can, but the thought did just cross my mind. In doing New Testament exegesis, one should simply be content to read Paul (or Deutero-Paul, if he/they exist) without pondering doctrine.

This raises a whole other question: can one actually do non-dogmatic exegesis? In a strong sense, exegesis is theological. But I suppose that is a question that must wait until I have time to think about it some more.

Suffice to say, Scripture has and will always have authority over my life. Not only because I submit to it, but because it has shown that it doesn’t quite care what I think. The reciprocity of Scripture is just that, a God offering us words written through his creation for his creation.

Would He have it any other way?

I apologize for not answering the question. Or did I? Too tired to scroll up.

Blessings,

NQ

Gospel Differences and the Southern Baptist Convention

I'm actually on top of a current event for once. This is pretty cool, even if the topic is a bit bifurcated. I should come mostly clean and specify that I support Mike Licona on this one, and find the opposition to be more interested in fighting ant hills. But that's getting a tad ahead of myself. The article is worth your time and I will only be commenting on a little bit of it.

For the original source, enjoy it here.

"I believe in biblical inerrancy, but I also realize that biblical inerrancy is not one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The resurrection is," Licona told Esposito. "So if Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity is still true even if it turned out that some things in the Bible weren't. So it didn't really bother me a whole lot even if some contradictions existed. But it did bother a lot of Christians."

Mike Licona recalled a student in a class he was teaching at Southern Evangelical Seminary who, with tears forming in her eyes, wanted to know whether there were indeed contradictions. A majority of the class, he said, raised their hands to indicate they were troubled by apparent contradictions. Then he realized it was something he should address. As he studied the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Licona began keeping a document of the differences he noticed. The document grew to 50 pages. He then read ancient biographies written around the time of Jesus because New Testament scholars often regard the Gospels as ancient biographies, he said.

For me, this has been an issue for the past six months. As I began to truly study Scripture, I found prima facie contradictions and have found it necessary to expand my definition of inerrancy. What made it so infuriating was no one told me such things existed. I didn't know what a textual variant was until a few years ago.

"I can tell you that of the 50 pages of differences that I've found in the Gospels -- and I'm still finding new ones -- all of them are in the peripheral details," Licona said. "There isn't a single perceived contradiction or difference in the Gospels that are any major details, any major details regarding an account. For example, was there one or were there two angels at the tomb? No one says the tomb was not empty. Even if you couldn't account for the difference between one and two angels -- and I think you can -- but even if you couldn't, it's still a major thing that Jesus rose and the tomb was empty."

I've found it odd that many fundamentalists and liberals focus so much on peripheral details and miss the centrality of the Jesus narrative. If the tiny details are wrong, the entire story must be wrong, again bringing forth the "all-or-nothing" mentality that pervades what's left of modern fundamentalism.

"... You may lose some form of biblical inerrancy if there are contradictions in the Gospels, but you still have the truth of Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead, and I think that's the most important point we can make," Licona said. Also in a discussion of apparent contradictions, Licona said, it is important to distinguish between a contradiction and a difference.  "Most of the things we find in the Gospels are differences. There are only maybe a handful of things between the Gospels that are potential contradictions in my opinion and only one or two that I've found that are really stubborn for me at this point -- and they're all in the peripherals," Licona said.

I think this is a really important distinction that Dr. Licona makes. Licona is referring to what I call a "flexible" inerrancy versus an "inflexible" inerrancy. The former is able to account for potentially contradictory data and allows for tension within the text. It allows for a big picture mentality that is needed these days.

Mohler, in comments to Baptist Press Feb. 6, said, "It would be nonsense to affirm real contradictions in the Bible and then to affirm inerrancy."

"Even Dr. Licona concedes that we 'may lose some form of biblical inerrancy if there are contradictions in the Gospels.' What you lose is inerrancy itself," Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said. "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy clearly and rightly affirms 'the unity and internal consistency of Scripture' and denies that any argument for contradictions within the Bible is compatible with inerrancy. An actual contradiction is an error."

I think what Dr. Mohler means to say is that we lose his inflexible definition of inerrancy. He also misses Dr. Licona's distinction between differences and contradictions. Mike is smart enough to realize that openness is something most reasonable people value, and I commend him for exploring such things.

Mohler identified two other major problems regarding Licona's methodology.

"First, we cannot reduce the Gospels to the status of nothing more than ancient biographies. The Bible claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit right down to the inspired words," Mohler said.

I don't think Dr. Licona is doing this, and I would further add that the Gospels are inspired but also within the recorded time frame and follows some standard conventions. To assert that this is "reduction" is a straw man and is nothing of the kind.

"The second problem is isolating the resurrection of Christ from all of the other truth claims revealed in the Bible. The resurrection is central, essential and non-negotiable, but the Christian faith rests on a comprehensive set of truth claims and doctrines," Mohler said. "All of these are revealed in the Bible, and without the Bible we have no access to them."

Mohler is both correct and incorrect in what he says here. He is correct to say that the resurrection is central and all of that. He is incorrect to assert, yet again, that if the peripheral details are off then the resurrection is suspect. Not much of what Mohler says here would put Licona in serious disagreement. Of course, Dr. Mohler would make it very clear that inerrancy is big potatoes. I think so as well, but I don't think one not affirming inerrancy puts them in the dog house.

Just as I think one not being a Calvinist or Arminian would result in being boxed into the same location. I shall conclude this brief piece with a comment from Licona's University President:

In regard to the hiring of Licona as an associate theology professor at Houston Baptist, Sloan, the university's president, conveyed confidence. The full text of Sloan's statement to Baptist Press Feb. 7 follows:

"Dr. Michael Licona is a very fine Christian. We trust completely his commitment to Scripture. There are those who disagree with his comments on what is a very difficult passage (Matthew 27:45-53, especially verses 52-53), but Mike Licona's devotion to the Lord Jesus, his magisterial defense of the resurrection, his publicly and solemnly declared affirmation of the complete trustworthiness of Scripture and his worldwide efforts to win others to Christ give us full confidence in his work as a teacher, colleague and faculty member of Houston Baptist University," Sloan said.

I'm hopeful that Dr. Licona's teaching career won't be affected by this unnecessary maelstrom. He has done much for the Kingdom and I thank him for his work. We must be allowed to ask and answer difficult questions without wondering where the knife is headed. That is the awful consequence of living in a world full of complexity.

--Nick

Origen on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture

 This is according to the Greek translation of Origen.

"And now we must add that it was after the advent of Jesus that the inspiration of the prophetic words and the spiritual nature of Moses' law came to light. For before the advent of Christ it was not at all possible to bring forward clear proofs of the divine inspiration of Scripture. But the advent of Jesus led those who might have suspected that the law and the prophets were not divine to the clear conviction that they were composed by the aide of heavenly grace.

{paragraph break in Greek}

And he who approaches the prophetic words with care and attention will feel from his very reading a trace of their divine inspiration and will be convinced by his own feelings that the words which are believed by us to be from God are not the compositions of men" (1).

Apparently, these problems were going on back then, particularly with the rise of Marcionism. Origen appears to be arguing for what we would call a Christocentric hermeneutic. Christian Smith defines this principle as following: "the purpose, center, and interpretive key to Scripture is Jesus Christ" (2). Simply put, the only thing by which Scripture makes sense is Jesus.

Thoughts?

--Nick

1. Origen, "On First Principles" pgs264-5.

2. Christian Smith, "The Bible Made Impossible" pg97.

The Bible Made Impossible: The Collapse of Evangelical "Biblicism"

I've started reading Christian Smith's book entitled, "The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism isn't a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture." Smith is a top sociologist at Notre Dame (and an evangelical Roman Catholic, a title I particularly enjoy) and I found his book challenging and profound. Much of what he said enlightened me in regards to what Scripture is, what it claims and what we claim about it.

Smith isn't arguing against inerrancy per se (though he makes a few cracks about it in passing), but rather how we read the Bible and how individual claim to hold it as their authority. In another way, when inerrancy becomes a defining point of one's salvation or sole authority. This boils down to a larger critique of evangelicalism, namely pervasive interpretive pluralism.

I will post a little quote by Smith and let you do with it what you will. Scot McKnight has a series over at Jesus Creed about Smith's book so I won't beat the horse further into giblets.

Smith:

I am not suggesting that the Bible is just a set of historical writings set in particular cultures, or the record of human subjective experiences of the divine that has little to say to contemporary people without being translated into terms modern people can accept. Instead, what I say here is simply that the biblicism that in much of American evangelicalism is presupposed to be the cornerstone to Christian truth and faithfulness is misguided and impossible. It does not and cannot live up to its own claims" (1).

Thoughts?

--Nick

Footnote:

1. Christian Smith, "The Bible Made Impossible" pgIX.

Anger and Inerrancy

This post is maybe 25 years in the making, especially with emphasis on the past 5 years in particular. A lot of this began with me being told that "Scripture is inerrant" and especially in regards to scientific and historical issues. This had been settled a hundred years ago, the folks told me, and I believed them. Or, just didn't care enough to really dig into it.

Lately, I've begun to rethink a lot of things, doctrines that I have always held but never for any particular reason. Doctrines like the Trinity, hell and others. For the most part, I think I've come down on the side of orthodoxy, albeit more or less on the more moderate side of evangelical scholarship.

But this post is something different. When I began to read Ehrman and Sparks, I was struck by a lot of seemingly contradictory elements in Scripture, both textually and theologically. The amount of this stuff was just mind-blowing.

Of course, a few years ago, I was under the assumption that the Bible was written in English. I kid, mostly.

But, in going through Biola University and getting a minor in Biblical Studies, I was struck by how little I really know of critical scholarship. Allison informed me that she learned about a lot of this at Biola while getting her Bachelors in Biblical Studies. This was news to me, because either I turned out most of my theology courses (admittedly a mild possibility) or they simply didn't mention such things.

I'm inclined to think they didn't mention them, and I'm certain I didn't get such resources in high school. When I discovered this, I was furious. I felt like I had been lied to. Allison mentioned that she knew about these things and Biola professors had worked on them, I literally shouted into the phone, "then why the hell didn't someone tell me?" Mind you, I wasn't angry at her at all. I was more angry at the fact that I found things were hidden from me.

I'm now reading through Kenton Spark's book Sacred Word, Broken Word and am now delving into critical scholarship to dissect this idea of inerrancy to see if it is applicable and actually true. I hope it is, but I've slowly come to realize that if inerrancy isn't true (or has been improperly defined) then I wouldn't have much of an issue not believing it.


So, in essence, I think my anger is and was reasonable. However, cooler heads prevailed and now the research can actually begin. My bank account may suffer a bit, but in between buying and aging beers, inerrancy seems like a more worthy hobby.

--Nick

Inerrancy, Genesis and Terms of Endearment

OPENING

I've had a few recent shifts in thought about the topic of biblical inerrancy, spurred on by discussions with good friends, reading the Bible and perusing various literature about said holy book.

So, to begin this off on the proper foot, I'm going to create a phrase that I will attempt to defend in the ensuing post(s?) as the way I tend to approach the Bible. This definition is more of my own musings on the topic, as many within Christendom are arguing over it and I'm nothing if not needy for more controversy.

INERRANCY AS A BRICK WALL

I was raised with the idea of biblical inerrancy, and that was more or less defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Their "short statement" reads:

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, 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.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Presumably, this excludes interpolations within the text by stating implicitly that if it was not divinely inspired then it carries no authority. An example of an interpolation is a word or phrase that was not in the original manuscripts (further ex. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; for a compelling conservative evangelical case for this, Philip Payne's "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pgs 217-67). But, upon reading this shorter statement, I don't find much that makes my toes curl or my scalp itch.

Interestingly, the writers also mention that inerrancy is not necessary for salvation (Article XIX), though they worry of the consequences.

A MOST LINGERING QUESTION

How do we honestly resolve apparent tension (historical, scientific, textual) in the bible without glossing over it?

DEFINITION

My view is one I will dub "flexible" or "open inerrancy." This means one can take into account various textual or historical errors by maintaining genre distinctions and personal witnesses. Various people viewing something from different angles resulting in various points of view on the same event does not nullify the actual event.

By this, I mean inerrancy (like evangelical) is a flexible definition and can include various options and ranges of influence. A big debate over this comes about by Mike Licona and Norm Geisler with Licona's view of Matthew 27 and the raised saints likely being not historical fact (one I agree with and support Mike). The question under the microscope is not the Bible's authority as most would suggest, but how to interpret such a strange little text within the confines of biblical authority.

An openness to expand the walls of inerrancy while maintaining biblical authority is what is necessary. We have to be personally critical to see if we can resolve issues within the text without a priori assuming that the bible is already perfect. I'm not willing to throw out the term "inerrancy" simply because other Christians claim ownership. In the same way Universalists don't get to claim Romans 5 or Calvinists get to claim Romans 9.

GENESIS AND THE "TEST CASE" FOR INERRANCY

I've heard it repeated that if one denies a "literal" interpretation (literal being used in an inflexibly flexible fashion, or rather, what makes sense to me is literal) of Genesis that one ceases being an inerrantist. I find this quite odd. So I'll muse a bit.

I think Genesis 1-11 aren't meant to be used or abused in a scientific fashion. Given the ANE culture and the prevalence of varying views of gods (an example being used that the gods flooded the earth because the puny humans were making too much noise) comes to mind.

Genesis personifies chaos, possibly utilizing the Babylonian god Tiamat (a primordial goddess of the sea; possible reference to Genesis 1:2 and the deep). This personification is used in a way to not only assert that YHWH is greater than their gods, but that YHWH is separate from creation (v.1). Though Church Father Origen was prone to over-allegorization, he never considered a "literal" view of 6 literal 24 hour days, citing the sequencing of the creation of night and day, sun and stars. The early church didn't seem to view Genesis in the same way, so I'm concerned why modern evangelicalism feels the need to draw the line at Genesis.

For a post-creation account exhibiting YHWH's subversive power, see Elijah's experience with the prophets of Baal. YHWH is bigger than your god (1 Kings 18).

Needless to say, Genesis cannot be read "literally" because it is not a literal account. Instead, from an ANE perspective, the greater principles are quite strong: YHWH is sovereign and creation came about because of a command. Genesis is intended to be a mythic, grandiose explanation as to the creator God's desire for community and his power to bring this about.

Another issue comes about when historical aspects are put in incorrect order, or technical difficulties like the spear/sword that King Saul is killed with in 1 and 2 Samuel. These would be technical errors, but they do not detract from the truth of the statement.

To view this in the oppose way is to miss the point of the text. At this point, the issue isn't the authority of Scripture, but of interpretive method. The method I have in mind can easily account for scientific formulation while maintaining the authority of the Bible.

A FALLIBLE DOXOLOGY

Maintain the bible's authority while keeping a critical eye is no easy task. In fact, I doubt I've done much to assuage the issues within the text. What about the "all or nothing" bit? Besides it being a fallacy, I don't see much of an issue. One needn't run away in fear unless they are committed to a specific view of Scripture that crumbles when challenged.

Hopefully this conversation helps. 

--Nick

(postscript) re-editing this post. Things may change.

An Inerrant Constitution, or the Ordination of Patriotism

PRELUDE

In essence, I doubt it. I do not doubt the sincerity of evangelicals who view the constitution in such "biblicist" terms. I do, however, doubt the necessity of thinking the constitution is binding and universal.

GOVERNMENTAL OPENNESS

A problem with this is that it holds back change. I don't think it does so in regards to caving into post-modernism or liberalism, as some conservatives (like myself) have little reason to maintain a tradition is the tradition is indeed incorrect. Instead, I think the truly Christian thing to do (and I'm not trying to colonize the word) is to constantly be open. An example would be Genesis, and how we interpret such a mythic book.

THE ORDINATION OF PATRIOTISM

Though the fervor is dwindling, many evangelicals have made the allegiance one has to the bible on par with one's politics. Many modern thinkers such as Greg Boyd and Kurt Willem have provocatively made points about violence, atonement and the pursuit of the Kingdom of God. Though some have gone too far in the opposite direction (see The Christian Left on facebook), the equalization of God and political parties leaves much to be desired.

We have, essentially, colonized the Bible in our pursuit of staying true to the Bible. Not only that, we have the Patriot's Bible coming out, a truly remarkable entity in America. This leads to something that has been bothering me for a long time:

What are we allowed to "change?" Or, less provocatively, what are we allowed to reconsider? I know many evangelicals are quick to cry foul when the President wants to institute a constitutional amendment for universal healthcare, but are very quick to jump on board supporting the marriage amendment act. My thought is that if something is wrong, then adding an amendment such as Amendment 13 is not only justified but is also biblical. This is something that should be pursued.

But do we do it through the constitution, or through loving actions in slums and soup kitchens?

I'll confess, I don't know the answer.

REDEMPTIVE-POLITICAL HERMENEUTICS

Simply put, can we move beyond the constitution of the United States? Do we re-evaluate the constitution in light of modern times and modern evidence?

This section requires more brainpower, but in a nutshell, the constitution has planted the seedlings we need to allow for slow and respectful progress towards a universal goal, and that is bringing about the Kingdom of God.

Still thinking.

--Nick

Numbers and the "Threat" to Inerrancy

Quient:

Currently, I am in the middle of someone’s sick experiment to see how soon MDiv students will go insane under pressure. I just finished one 4 unit Hebrew Exegesis class in only 10 days and am now taking a Pentateuch and Historical Books 4 unit class—in 10 days. Even though I have had to pull three all nighters in a row working on exegetical papers, much of what I am learning in class almost makes up for the pain and suffering.
One of the topics discussed today by Dr. Younger are the inflated numbers in the Old Testament book of Numbers. Basically, the way the numbers are represented in many of our Bibles makes it seem as though there is an absorbent amount of people—way too many for how many there could reasonably be for even a large city in the ancient world. Just one tribe: Ruben is said to have 45, 500 people! There are some who are dedicated to taking a literalist interpretation, who claim this presents a problem for believing the Bible is without errors.

There is actually a very simple resolution to this problem though. The word used is “elef” which can certainly mean 1,000, but it can also mean “clan” (Judge 6 and Micah 5:2). What is the difference in result?

One example of the difference is 46,500 Rubenites vs 46 clans or families with some additional people perhaps not part of the clans.

The strength in this line of thinking is evident when we consider what other parts of Scripture have to say and do a little problem solving. Deuteronomy 7:7 tells us God did not choose Israel because they were the most numerous. This means, the Israelites did not stand as some radical exception to the norm in numbers for the ancient world. Also, when it came to the Israelites conquest of Jericho they are said to have went out with about 3,000 men, but lost and badly defeated on account of 36 men dying? This of course contextually makes no sense if 36/3000 died.

This is a case where understanding the original language the Bible was written in makes all the difference!

For the entire post, click HERE.

--Nick

Olson, "Inerrnacy & Definition/s"

Olson:

Kenton (“Kent”) Sparks is professor of biblical studies at Eastern University (American Baptist) in Pennsylvania. He has authored books such as Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible and God’s Word in Human Words. He identifies as an evangelical. Some critics will question that identification, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and view “evangelical” as a fuzzy category.

In my opinion, a person can be evangelical without adhering all the way to every part of the so-called “received evangelical tradition” (stamped as that tends to be by Old Princeton theology).
Without question Sparks’ argument is bold—at least among evangelical and relatively conservative Protestants. It will be interesting to see how it plays out among moderate to progressive (postconservative) evangelicals.

What’s especially interesting about the book is Sparks’ response to the Old Testament “texts of terror”—something we have discussed here quite a lot. If I understand his thesis correctly, it is very similar to what I have argued here—that the Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New and that, at least occasionally, reports in the Old Testament (about what God commanded people to do) must be relativized in light of the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ who is the Word of God in person.

Here is one especially clear statement of the book’s overall thesis:

Scripture, as a book written by fallible human beings, is itself a book of theological discourse that that advances the truth but also stands in need of redemption. Scripture is beautiful and broken, and it is being read and studied in the church, and sometimes outside of the church, by beautiful and broken human beings. Nevertheless, Christians have theological and philosophical reasons to suppose that, when we read Scripture well, we are able to understand it. And as we understand it, we shall find that God’s truth and beauty run deeper, and are more potent, than the brokenness that God is healing. (88)

In other words, according to Sparks, there are records in Scripture that simply cannot be trusted as true because of the Bible’s humanity. He begins with blatant contradictions such as the accounts of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus and death in Matthew and Acts; they cannot be reconciled. Most people are not particularly bothered by that. Only neo-fundamentalists find it necessary to try to harmonize them. The differences are not important theologically. One can easily respond to them by saying that, in spite of such contradictions, the Bible is “perfect with respect to purpose” (John Piper). We can chalk such flaws to human fallibility so long as we hold to a dynamic rather than verbal view of inspiration. (By “verbal inspiration” here I mean the idea that God led the writers to the exact words he wanted them to use. By “dynamic inspiration” here I mean the idea that God led the writers to the ideas he wanted them to record but allowed their personalities and cultures and fallible memories, etc., to affect what they wrote.)

What will trouble many evangelicals more is Sparks’ handling of the Old Testament texts of terror:

Where we judge that Scripture presents God as saying or doing something he would not say or do, we should confess that “these texts tell us more about the purposes of their human authors than about the purposes of God.” We will simply admit that the author of Deuteronomy wrongly believed (as Luther did) that God told his people to slaughter their enemies. To express in theological jargon, Scripture includes both “God-talk” (first-order words from God to humanity) and “god-talk-talk” (mistaken, second-order accounts of what God has supposedly said. This is an important distinction…. (105-106)

Telling the difference between these two types of texts is a matter of Christological discernment, not cultural accommodation. Sparks adamantly rejects any idea that his proposal is based on modern sentiments. To those who disagree he rightly points back to church fathers such as Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom and others who freely admitted that the texts of terror in question could not be taken at face value. The way premodern Christians handled them was to allegorize them. That method isn’t open to us. So where does that leave us?

 For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Roger Olson, "Problems with Inerrancy"

Roger Olson:

Notice I put “inerrancy” in “scare quotes.” That’s to indicate that what I am talking about is the term, not precisely the concept. Or, to put it another way, my concern is that the term is used for many different concepts and therefore, without definition, is virtually meaningless.

Now I am going to quote a leading evangelical theologian’s definition of biblical inerrancy. I’m not revealing his name first; his identity as the definition’s author is below it. I challenge you to read the definition first and only then see who wrote it. And before peeking at the author’s name, formulate an opinion about it. Is the definition what you thought “inerrancy” means? Is it what leading conservative evangelical inerrantist theologians mean? How many would agree with it?

Here is the definition which is copyrighted, but the author’s web site gives permission to disseminate it with the copyright line following. I also provide, as requested, a link to the source of the definition at the author’s web site. (However, I first encountered it elsewhere; it was given to me by a colleague many years ago.)

The definition:

“I. The Word of God

“The Bible is…without error in the original manuscripts…”  Since there is a wide diversity of opinions on the meaning of “error” in such an affirmation, it is appropriate that I give my understanding of the word in this context so that you know what I am affirming.

I will suggest two definitions of “error”, the first of which I consider proper for judging the reliability of any literature including the Bible and the second of which I consider improper.  According to the first I believe the Bible is “without error”.

1) A writer is in error when the basic intention in his statements and admonitions, properly understood in their nearer and wider context, is not true.  (In reference to indicative statements, “true” means they correspond to reality; in reference to admonitions “true” means that obedience of these admonitions is in harmony with reality, i.e., it accords with the will of God.)

2) A writer is in error if any of his individual statements are not literally true.

The difference between these two definitions and my own understanding of the truth of the Bible may be clarified by three illustrations from Scripture. (To many of my fellow theologians the following would sound elementary to the point of being superfluous. But in my tradition it is a necessary starting point if we are to come to properly understand our affirmation on Scripture.)

A) God says against Jerusalem through Jeremiah (15:8), “I have made their widows more in number than the sand of the sea.” This statement is “literally” false.  But according to definition 1 above, it is not false since the basic intention of Jeremiah is to press home (by an exaggeration which had become a commonplace analogy in the Old Testament) the tragically large number of widows as a sign of God’s judgment.

B) Jesus says in Mark 4:31 that the Kingdom of God “is like a grain of mustard seed which when sown upon the ground is the smallest of all the seeds on earth…”  According to definition 2 above, Jesus erred here because the mustard seed is not the smallest seed on the earth.  But according to the first definition he did not err because his basic intention was not in the least botanical.  The point is the great contrast between the smallness of the seed and the largeness of the full-grown shrub.  Jesus capitalized on the proverbial smallness of the mustard seed (TWNT, VII, p. 288) to make a perfect, inerrant point about the Kingdom of God.

C) If we used definition 2 above the Gospel writers would have to be accused of error in their chronology of events of Jesus’ life.  Just one illustration: The story of the healing of the paralytic (Mt. 9:1-8 = Mk 2:1-12 = Lk 5:17-26), the call of Levi (Mt 9:9-13 = Mk 2:13-17 = Lk 5:27-32), and the question about fasting (Mt 9:14-47 = Mk 2:18-22 = Lk 5:33-39) follow back to back in all three Synoptics and so refer to the same events.  Again, the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23-27 = Mk 4:35-41 = Lk 8:22-25) and the Gesarene demoniac (Mt 8:28 = Mk 5:1-20 = Lk 8:26-39) follow back to back in all three Synoptics so that with the verbal parallels one can see that the same sequence of events is being referred to in each Gospel.  But Matthew has these last two events before the three cited above.  While Mark and Luke have them after these three events.  It cannot be both ways.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Roger Olson, "Inerrancy"

Olson:

What does “inerrancy” actually do?

During this week’s brouhaha over possible semi-Pelagianism among Southern Baptist theologians (see the previous two posts and the comments here), one response has stuck in my mind and given me reason to worry. It worries me more than the possibility of semi-Pelagianism in the ranks of the theologians.

I confess that throughout this budding controversy I have occasionally broken a personal policy. Normally I do not go to other blogs to see what others are saying about the subjects we talk about here. But the policy isn’t iron clad; it’s not a rule, just a rule of thumb to protect my time. If I went to every blog someone recommends I read, I’d never get anything else done. So, normally, I only go if the blog is by someone I respect or whose opinions I consider influential and the subject is directly relevant to a matter I’m working on here.

This week I followed a link one commenter provided to a blog containing quotes by leading Baptist theologians about this issue of possible semi-Pelagianism among non-Calvinist Southern Baptist theologians. One of those quotes was from a Southern Baptist seminary president’s blog. (Don’t try to drag a name out of me or even mention possible ones; I’m not interested in personalities here. I’m talking about ideas.)

The well-known seminary president began this particular blog post by congratulating the Southern Baptist theologians he was about to criticize for at least believing in the inerrancy of the Bible. He said he was glad to be having this conversation with them (over grace and free will) because at least they and he agree on biblical inerrancy.

Two things caught my attention about that and made me worry. First, why didn’t the seminary president begin by saying at least he and his debate partners agree about Jesus Christ or salvation by grace? Why jump immediately and directly to the Bible—and a particular theory about the Bible?

For the rest, click  HERE.

--Nick