A Different Kind of Evangelical or Betraying Evangelicalism?
December 7, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
Hello everyone! I guess I'll just begin by jumping in the deep end!
On the emergent-us blog, a recent entry was titled “A Different Kind of Evangelical” by Steve Bush. In it, he compares and contrasts what he calls “conservative evangelicals” with “postconservative evangelicals” (read backward fundies vs. hip emergent-types). He makes some fascinating comparisons:
1) Theological Differences. “…they are different, and their differences are in large part theological.” At least he admits this much! I wish all of the emerging crowd was as forthcoming.
2) Inerrancy. “Postconservative evangelicals believe that the conservatives’ privileging of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is mistaken. Inerrancy is a data-centered approach to Scripture, whereas postconservatives practice a person-centered approach. In our view, the Bible is not a repository of facts, but rather a witness to a living person: the resurrected Jesus Christ.” Ah, yes. The false dichotomy. Is the Bible data-centered or person-centered? Hmmm… How about realizing that Scripture contains data which directs us to a Person? Why separate the two and minimize (or even reject) the doctrine of biblical inerrancy?
3) Salvation. “Conservative evangelicals tend to see salvation as an individualistic affair, postconservatives emphasize the communal dimension.” Once again, why emphasize one over the other? Christ redeemed His elect, and they compose His body (the church).
4) Hell. “Conservatives tend to see hell as a place of eternal, conscious torment after death; postconservatives are concerned about this-worldly hells of genocides, slums, and diseases.” Interesting. I'll come back to this in a minute.
5) Evangelism. “The postconservative attitude towards non-evangelical and non-Christian thought is an attitude of critical but receptive openness. We are not zealous to debunk non-Christian views, but instead seek to find what is valuable in other perspectives.” When one believes that God reveals His truth through His Word, and that Scripture is sufficient for us in our faith and in our practice, then why do we look for value in other perspectives? I realize that we want to accurately understand what people believe as well as look for bridges in communicating the gospel, but I get uncomfortable with a Christian seeking “what is valuable in other perspectives.” Why not simply seek what God has actually revealed to us in the Bible?
And this gets me back to my general observation of these kinds of statements–they are not grounded in Scripture! How should we understand salvation, hell, and evangelism? By turning to God's Word! In all of Bush's comparisons, none are grounded in the Bible. Doesn't Scripture tell us about the individual and corporate aspects of salvation? What does the Bible reveal about hell? Doesn't the Word of God tell us and show us how to proclaim the gospel? This blog entry certainly doesn't point us in this direction!
As a result, this type of thinking is not directing one toward a different kind of evangelical. It leads to a betrayal of evengelicalism itself.
Related posts:
- ETS 2008 – Mark Wittmer "Machen on McLaren: A New Kind of Liberal?"
- Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think
- Wait! Not That Kind of Ambassador!
- An Anselmian Defense of Hell
- ETS 2006- H. Chris Ross: Promoting Evangelical Faith Through New Media
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 2
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page
content rss
December 7th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Good comments. Much of “emergism” seems to be a reaction against something rather than an idea that stands on its own merits. This statement sounds more like an attempt to define the “un-evangelical” than a clear vision of a new way of looking at the church of Jesus Christ. It's hard to take it very seriously.
The statement on hell is especially laughable. Sounds like it was written by a committee of Episcopalian priests.
December 7th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Just a personal note, “Why separate the two and minimize (or even reject) the doctrine of biblical inerrancy?” I never held it, and spent most of my life apart from those who did. In fact, I tended to put those who held an inerrent position in the fundamentalist camp, rather than the infallible evangelical camp, and just putting them in that camp was enough to rationalize my lack of interaction with them.
On the rest of your post, I still feel as though you are talking past one another in places, but I don't have the time right now to distill where that is.
I feel as though you still haven't seen the emerging ethos through their eyes. I appreciate your desire to ground your faith, values and theology in scripture and I appreciate the merit of some of your critique.
December 7th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Interesting points.
I'll quibble with one of your last. There is scriptural warrant for finding things of value in non-believers. The Bible is witness not only to special revelation, but general revelation as well. Abraham, one of our strongest representatives of special revelation, tithes to the greater Mezchizedek, the non-Jew who represents general revelation (and Hebrews tells us which order of priest Jesus is identified with). Paul quotes pagan poets and sayings, and makes reference to the Athenian altar to an unknown God.
Augustine referred to this as “Egyptian's gold”, i.e. just as the Israelites took the best material goods the Egyptians had to offer, we as Christians can learn from non-believers because we realize that even with the Fall they retain some marred remnants of the image of God. This is why Augustine thought Plato had a lot to teach us, and would have been a Christian had his timing been better, and Calvin's first scholarly work, if I'm not mistaken, was on Seneca. I don't think anyone doubts Calvin's commitment to the truth of Scripture. And I think Scripture itself points to learning from non-believers, and offers no positive command to refrain from doing so.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Micah,
I suppose I was unclear. I did not intend to deny general revelation! Bush was writing about evangelism, contrasting those who are
December 7th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
That makes a great deal of sense to me. Thanks for helping me see what you were thinking in the context of Bush's piece.
)
(as an aside, how much do you suppose this fellow now resents his last name?
December 8th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
This has been an interesting exchange to follow. After reading, I feel even more strongly inclined to define (or label) myself a Christian. It seems that if I defined myself as Evangelical, I would be setting myself against Post-Conservatives, perhaps, and if I were an Episcopal priest, as mentioned above, I might be tempted to define myself against Evangelicals. So I will continue to define myself as a Christian.
Also, I am going to resist the urge to weigh in on the debate about Biblical inerrancy. But I can't resist pointing to Paul's remarks about those who say “I am for Paul!” “I am for Apollos!” Whether or not scripture is inerrant, that vignette of Paul's is telling. Why are some Christians investing so much energy on defining? Actually I can guess why, but for me, it's more important to see past the forces which try to distract us from our witness and our relationship with the Lord.
Vicky
December 10th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Jon, I'm the author of the post. Thanks for your response.
I'm sorry that you attributed to me the view that conservatives as “backward fundies.” I don't think that sort of description of conservative evangelicals is accurate or helpful, and I did not use that terminology in my post. I also don't think it's helpful if conservatives automatically perceive others to be thinking of them in those terms. All of this hurts any opportunity for honest dialogue.
In terms of substance, I'll limit my remarks to one point: inerrancy.
The usefulness of distinguishing between person-centered and data-centered approaches to Scripture is this: under a person-centered approach, as I construe it, what matters is that Scripture sufficiently convey the identity of Jesus Christ. If that is what matters, then whether or not the details of the Lukan account of the Roman census, for example, are 100% accurate is relatively unimportant. That's not to say they're wrong, that's just to say it doesn't matter very much whether they're right or wrong.
The arguments issued in defense of inerrancy are unconvincing. Proponents say that inerrancy is taught in Scripture, but this is not true; or at any rate, it's not at all clearly true.
You can squeeze 'theopneustos' all you want, but the Chicago Statement isn't going to come out. So the primary defense of inerrancy is to claim that Scripture is the Word of God, and then to attribute to scripture various qualities that Scripture predicates of the “Word of God.”
But Scripture itself does not state that Scripture (in its entirety) is the Word of God, so this line of defense fails. The confusion here is that conservative scholars cite passages in which particular passages in scripture are referred to as the word of god as evidence that that the entirety of scripture is the word of god. This is to confuse the part with the whole: an obvious error.
The Bible (rather, the original manuscripts) may or may not contain factual errors. I don't claim to know. I'm just saying that there is not sufficient reason to affirm that it does not. Further, it is an epistemologically costly doctrine, since it commits one to a view that leaves one constantly having to defend against every single supposed factual error, at the potential cost to the entire theological system. Since all we need is to know the identity of Jesus Christ, inerrancy is overkill. It's not much bang for a lot of buck.
Steve B.
generousorthodoxy.net
December 10th, 2005 at 10:36 am
I think it would be beneficial for everyone to (re-) read the Chicago Statement. In response to the question of whether Luke's account of the Roman census is 100% accurate, the statement addresses things like that when it notes that
December 10th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Steve, just to be clear, are you saying that you don't believe all of the Bible is the Word of God, or just that one can't prove it is?
Also, you say that it's “not much bang for a lot of buck” to try to show that all the Bible is the Word of God. For clarity's sake, which parts do you think are “not much bang”? Anything other than the gospels?
You say, “All we need to know is the identity of Christ.” Wouldn't you say that's filled out throughout the entire Bible?
December 10th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Or by “not much bang,” do you mean the doctrine of innerancy, rather than parts of the Bible that people might dismiss?
December 10th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Timbo, I readily acknowledge that that is the version of inerrancy at issue.
So read my statement “Whether or not the details of the Lukan account of the Roman census, for example, are 100% accurate is relatively unimportant” as “Whether or not the details of the Lukan account of the Roman census, measured by the historiographical standards of Luke's time and place, are 100% accurate is relatively unimportant.”
December 10th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
This bit from the Chicago statement is rather similar to Grenz's definition of inerrancy in Theology for the Community of God, or vice versa. Both want to uphold the term inerrancy, but there seems to be some rather strong redefining of terms here. Inerrancy has for the most part meant that the Bible is 100% perfect by modern standards in every claim in the original manuscripts, save for grammatical errors. It could be read as a complete text for history, natural science, political science, etc. Fuller Theological Seminary got itself into (and remains in) a slew of trouble when it adopted a stance of infallibility that is somewhat akin to the Chicago Statement.
Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement says, “We affrim that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.” The use of those forms of criticism is waht many traditional inerrantists see exactly as the problem.
December 12th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Amy,
My claim is this:
A crucial argumentative step in standard defenses of inerrancy is the claim that the testimony of Scripture is that Scripture, in its entirety, is the Word of God. I am saying that Scripture does not refer to itself in those terms, and that the inferences from particular scriptural statements to that conclusion are highly dubious. So, we have: (1) no good reason to believe that Scripture is the Word of God in any sense that would be useful for a defense of inerrancy; and (2) no good reason to believe that Scripture is inerrant.
Given the extreme epistemological demands of affirming that every single assertion in the Bible (when properly interpreted, acc. to the standards of the genre and the time) is true, we should not take such a burden upon ourselves unless compelling reasons indicate we should. No such compelling reasons exist.
That's my negative argument.
My positive argument is that all we need for a sufficient doctrine of Scripture is to affirm that Scripture renders the identity of Jesus Christ in sufficient detail and accuracy (sufficient for the performance of the churchly tasks of worship and mission).
You are right to point out that the entirety of Scripture plays a role in identifying Jesus Christ. The Christian canon situates Jesus firmly at the center of the narrative that encompasses both Israel, in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the church, in the New Tesament.
But that doesn't mean that every single aspect of the canonical witness plays an equal role in identifying Christ. It is essential, for a creed-affirming Christian, that the passages affirming the resurrection of Jesus Christ be accurate. Whether or not, say, Adbeel was a descendant of Ishmael (1 Chr 1:29)? Not so important for apprehending the identity of Jesus Christ.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Steve, setting aside the question of what you can prove for a moment, my question is whether or not you personally believe that all of the Bible is the Word of God. It sounds as if you're saying you don't, but I want to be sure I understand you correctly on this. Could you clarify?
Are there parts you do consider to be the Word of God (i.e., “God-breathed”)? For example, based on 2 Tim 3:16, would you say that the Old Testament is the Word of God, but possibly not the New Testament? Or do you have a different interpretation of what “God-breathed” means?
And finally, how do you personally decide which parts of the Bible are the Word of God and which aren't? I'm very interested in hearing what your opinion is on this, so thanks for the discussion.
December 13th, 2005 at 8:49 am
It is difficult to answer your first question, Amy, because there are different senses of the phrase “Word of God” (It means something different for Barth, for instance, than it does for conservative evangelicals.)
I do not believe that the Bible is the “Word of God” in any sense that the defenders of inerrancy would find useful for their arguments, and I don't think that their defense of inerrancy on the basis that the Bible is the “word of god” withstands scrutiny. Other than that, I'd have to know more specifically what you mean by “word of god” to answer the question. I certainly don't think “theopneustos” gets you as far as inerrantists want it to; although I'm happy to say it gets you as far as 2 Tim 3:16 takes it (”useful for…”).
Steve B.
generousorthodoxy.net
December 13th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Steve, it sounds like you think the Bible is the “Word of God,” but that you have developed your own meaning of the phrase. So what does the phrase “Word of God” mean to you? That is, what, in your opinion, is the Bible? Do you believe it's useful, but nothing more than that?
As far as the passage I mentioned, what does it mean to you that Scripture is God-breathed?
And finally, do you think that when Paul wrote II Timothy that he had the same definition of “God-breathed” that you hold now, or a different one?
December 13th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
“Steve, it sounds like you think the Bible is the “Word of God,” but that you have developed your own meaning of the phrase.” I see nothing in my remarks that indicates that this is so.
“That is, what, in your opinion, is the Bible?” The literature that the church has taken as providing the normative depiction of the identity of Jesus Christ.
“what does it mean to you that Scripture is God-breathed?” That God has ensured that Scripture is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that God's servant may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
December 13th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
“I see nothing in my remarks that indicates that this is so.”
You talked about different meanings people have for the phrase “Word of God,” so I assumed you had your own that you preferred that was probably not the general view.
Just to pinpoint your view further, there are a lot of useful writings out there–did the church decide what to include as Scripture or is there something special about Scripture that makes it different from other useful writings (besides merely the fact that they were chosen)? Did God bring about the writing of the books of the Bible, or are they just writings the church gathered together?
But again, do you believe that your view of Scripture and the phrase “God-breathed” is the same one that Paul held?
December 14th, 2005 at 3:17 am
Question 1: If the original manuscripts did contain errors, how do you know that you are even conveying the identity of Christ correctly?
Question 2: If Scripture is not self-attesting to its inerrancy, can you prove this from Scripture since it is the highest standard by which we make judgements?
Question 3: What books of the Bible do you not consider “the Word of God”?
Question 4: Related to Question 3, how do you know they are not?
Question 5: If the original manuscripts contain errors, does this mean that Scripture can be broken?
Question 6: Related to Question 5, is the phrase from John 10:35 “The Scripture cannot be broken” erroneously written?
Question 7: What theological stance can you have when you don't even know if the Scriptures that hold up your theology are in error?
December 14th, 2005 at 4:01 am
“My positive argument is that all we need for a sufficient doctrine of Scripture is to affirm that Scripture renders the identity of Jesus Christ in sufficient detail and accuracy (sufficient for the performance of the churchly tasks of worship and mission).”
By what standard can you claim this? If Scripture is your standard, how well can you stand on a standard that is errant? Can you even begin to point out what is or isn't errant if you have nothing to safeguard the inerrancy of the Scriptures? Your positive argument relies on inerrancy and for you to dismiss it undermines your position. Since you do not know what factual errors there are in the original manuscripts, you can only buttress your positive argument by arbitrarily picking and choosing what you think is inerrant.
“But that doesn't mean that every single aspect of the canonical witness plays an equal role in identifying Christ. It is essential, for a creed-affirming Christian, that the passages affirming the resurrection of Jesus Christ be accurate. Whether or not, say, Adbeel was a descendant of Ishmael (1 Chr 1:29)? Not so important for apprehending the identity of Jesus Christ.”
Perhaps not “so important” for the identity of Christ, but important nonetheless. After all, sites like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible live for nitpicking at the Bible for any error in order to undermine the entirety of the Bible. After all, if God is wrong in one area, He's probably wrong in other things as well. Then again, a God who is wrong in the details certainly cannot be God, so why bother with the rest of Scripture? I'm sure there are plenty of atheists out there who would love to hear about Christians giving up the inerrancy of the Bible.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:09 am
“so I assumed you had your own that you preferred that was probably not the general view.” That's not the case. I'm acknowledging that different theologians have different understandings of what WoG means, and I'm saying that I'd have to know whose your were talking about in order to answer the question. I'm sympathetic to Pannenberg's and Tillich's cautions against referring to the Bible as the WoG, if I were to do so, Barth's view is more amenable, but I find problems with it too. At any rate, since Scripture does not refer to itself as the WoG, I see no strong reason to do so in any sense of the term.
“did the church decide what to include as Scripture” Yes: The Spirit-indwelt church decided.
“do you believe that your view of Scripture and the phrase “God-breathed” is the same one that Paul held?” Well, beyond “useful for…”, Paul doesn't specify what he meant. I think there's clearly a pneumatological component to his use of the term, and I'm happy to affirm that. Other than that, we just don't have much to go on.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:27 am
“Question 2: If Scripture is not self-attesting to its inerrancy, can you prove this from Scripture since it is the highest standard by which we make judgements?” Yes, quite simply. There is no passage in Scripture that says, “Scripture is inerrant,” or anything synonymous to this.
Steve
December 15th, 2005 at 5:49 am
You're arguing from silence. And considering the fact the prophets are subject to prophets, Scripture can only attest to itself and subject to itself. When you argue from silence, as you have done, you subject Scripture under your own view. That just doesn't cut it. You might as well argue that there is no Trinity because Scripture doesn't say, “God is 3 persons in 1″ or whatever equivalent phrase you might choose.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:50 am
Oh, and I did notice that you avoided the rest of the questions.
December 15th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Steve, thanks for continuing this discussion! How would you interpret these verses:
Luke 1:69-70: “And has raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of David His servant–As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old….” Again, Matthew 1:22 talks of what was “spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” (Also Acts 1:16.)
2 Peter 1:21: “for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
It's my understanding that the Jews of Paul's time had a different view of Scripture than what you're suggesting. Do you think we should try to understand Paul on his own terms from his own context, or that it's better to interpret his words how we see fit from our position today?
December 15th, 2005 at 11:18 am
If the argument continues to be based on interpretations of the word “inerrant” or on interpretations of meanings in the Bible, or on interpretations of what scholars (Tillich, Barth, et al) have said about the Bible, then the argument will continue to entangle itself in the labyrinth of different viewpoints held by individuals, as seen in comments, above.
If, instead, we cease our argument about Scripture, and instead base our view on our relationship with Christ (bringing Scripture into this on an individual basis, but without trying to formulate interpretive arguments for other believers), then does the argument vanish, or at least diminish in importance?
How valid is the concept of inerrancy of Scripture to your daily walk with Christ?
Vicky
December 15th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Vicky, I think you've articulated many people's concerns. Consider this: in 2 Tim 3:14-4:4, Paul talks about the key place that Scripture plays in leading to true faith in Christ, and Timothy is given the solemn charge of focusing on preaching the word.
I think discussion is good–both Steve and I and anyone else should put forth what we think and why we think it so that others can decide what they think is true based on the best information. I think he has been very charitable, and I've tried to be as well.
Seeing as how central the Bible is to forming our beliefs about God, this is a profitable and important discussion, don't you think?
December 15th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Amy, I do think the discussion is a fertile one, at least among believers. And you two have been models of civility, I think. When I used the term “argument” in my comment, above, I was not referring specifically to your discourse. I was expressing my thoughts about the ongoing argument about inerrancy that has been raging–and in some cases it does reach a raging pitch–for some time. Some people go so far as to allege that one cannot be a Christian without belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. That crosses a border for me, into the realm of suspect reasoning and faulty judgment. So I'm calling that “argument” into question. But you all don't seem to have alleged this, at least not yet
Vicky
December 15th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Amy, The passages you cite refer to the contents of particular passages in scripture as 'spoken by god' or such. They make no such claims for scripture in its entirety. As I already said: “But Scripture itself does not state that Scripture (in its entirety) is the Word of God, so this line of defense fails. The confusion here is that conservative scholars cite passages in which particular passages in scripture are referred to as the word of god as evidence that that the entirety of scripture is the word of god. This is to confuse the part with the whole: an obvious error.”
December 16th, 2005 at 12:28 am
Yes, you did say that, but that wasn't really my question. Actually, I was just asking how you understood those verses. I'm trying to understand better what your view is. What do you think it means when the Bible says that God spoke through those particular writers of Scripture? Do you think this phrase is accurate in terms of the passages to which they're referring? (I wasn't trying to relate it to the whole Bible yet!) Would you then accept those particular passages referred to as being from God (rather than merely gathered by God's direction), but none others?
Also, I really would like to hear what you think about my question about Paul.
Since the Bible does say that all Scripture is “God-breathed,” the question really hinges on what is meant by this phrase. I think it's reasonable to assume it means “spoken by God through the prophets” since that is how Scripture is described in the above instances, among others. But I'll leave that completely aside for the moment to hear your responses to the above questions.
December 16th, 2005 at 2:07 am
“How valid is the concept of inerrancy of Scripture to your daily walk with Christ?”
As Amy had reasoned from Scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all Scripture is God-breathed. If we assume that Scripture is errant, then we would have to conclude that God is errant as well. (We are arguing about the original manuscripts, not the Bible we have today). One could argue that because it was written by men, it was men who are errant, not God. Ok, then God just isn't as powerful as He is made out to be from the Scriptures.
Can such implications sit well with the Christian? It is one thing for us to make an error in interpretation or translation, but it is quite another to implicate God as erroneous in something that He has “breathed”, or that He was too weak to prevent errors from creeping in.
So, yes, inerrancy of Scripture plays a major role in my walk with Christ. If I can't trust that God has breathed an inerrant oringal manuscript, how can I trust that He has not erred in (fill in the blank)?
December 16th, 2005 at 2:17 am
Good to have you back Victor!
December 16th, 2005 at 9:50 am
Amy:
“through those particular writers of Scripture?”
Actually those verses don't say anything about the “writers of scripture.” What the verses you cite affirm is that the utterances of particular individuals were utterances of God. I affirm this too. I distinguish between those utterances and scripture in toto.
Indeed, we also have to distinguish between those original utterances, to which the predicate “spoken by god” properly applies, and results of the processes of oral transmission, inscription, copying, editing, and translation. (In regard to the HB, this makes the notion of an “autographic text” hopeless.)
But in those cases where a NT author/speaker affirms the content of a particular passage from the HB, I am happy to affirm that that the content is accurate as well. In fact, in general I assume that the content of the Bible is accurate, but this assumption is defeasible, and defeasible on a verse-by-verse basis.
“Since the Bible does say that all Scripture is “God-breathed,” the question really hinges on what is meant by this phrase. I think it's reasonable to assume it means “spoken by God through the prophets” since that is how Scripture is described in the above instances, among others.”
I don't at all find that reasonable to assume. If the question hinges on what that phrase means, inerrantists are in trouble. There is no verse in the Bible that says, “theopneustos means 'spoken by god through the prophets.'” You're free to speculate and infer as much as you want on the meaning of 'theopneustos', but to base your defense of inerrancy on such speculations can hardly be considered convincing. Further, the formula you offer fails to distinguish between the contributions to the content of scripture which are from “prophets” and those which are from nameless, faceless scribes. Nor can we say “scripture is described in the above instances” in the manner you say. In the above instances, scripture isn't being described at all, but rather particular “prophetic” utterances which are recorded in scripture. Here's the part-whole confusion again.
December 16th, 2005 at 11:58 am
More on theopneustos. You're trying to read 'God-breathed' as 'God-spoken.' But if Paul intended 'God-spoken' by 'God-breathed,' he was quite careless. The terms aren't semantically equivalent, so why try to force them into equivalence? Whatever the entirety of Paul's concept of 'God-breathed' was, we cannot say. Thankfully, though, he did not leave us confused, since he immediately goes on to specify precisely what it is about being 'god-breathed' that he thinks is important: “Useful for…” If that's good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me.
Steve
December 16th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
As Steve said, above, the interpretation of “God-breathed” is at issue; he rightly points out why this term cannot be assumed to mean that all Scripture is inerrant. Words God spoke are obviously the words of God, but they were transcribed. Also, Paul is so forthright as to differentiate between when he speaks for himself, and when he speaks “from God” –and he does this in Scripture, so we know that Paul is differentiating between more-or-less fallible sources right there. Finally, Scripture is of use “for doctrine, for reproof” in our own walk, with our own recourse to prayer as we read, and our own governance from God.
My point: Scripture contains the word of God but it is not God. We are not given license, anywhere, to make an interpretation and then tell others that “X is true because I interpret Scripture to say X and Scripture is inerrant, therefore X must be true.”
The problem, I think, is the fine line, or the grey area, between the word and the human reading, the mind's interpretive act.
Vicky
December 16th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Forgot to answer Victor's question about the slippery slope: “If we assume that Scripture is errant, then we would have to conclude that God is errant as well. (We are arguing about the original manuscripts, not the Bible we have today). One could argue that because it was written by men, it was men who are errant, not God. Ok, then God just isn't as powerful as He is made out to be from the Scriptures” This seems, to me, quite a leap. We know that God doesn't micromanage us; He allows human error to exist; he allows evil to continue; He allows false declarations to be made about Him by false prophets and other such folk. He wants us to walk with Him and find our way by His light, not by second-hand information.
“If I can't trust that God has breathed an inerrant oringal manuscript, how can I trust that He has not erred in (fill in the blank)?” This seems to me like another leap. I know I can trust God because he has proven trustworthy in my life. The Bible has small errors and contradictions because humans transcribed it, so I look for the spirit, and I read the words of Christ which are given in four variant Gospels that agree in spirit, though not in the letter. Also, when I read the Bible, I think and pray. When I hear Scripture read and preached in church, I think and pray. Sometimes I disagree with the preaching; do I then leave Christ because one person spoke in a way I could not find credible? So many Christian writers testify to the need for each believer to do their thinking in relationship to the Lord, testing the spirits (and words) to see whether they be from God: I find that credible!
Vicky
December 16th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Steve, this column is getting ridiculously skinny! I'm moving the discussion to the bottom of this page. See there for my question…
December 16th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Steve, I really am interested in hearing your response to this question I posted earlier. I think it will help me understand where you're coming from:
“It's my understanding that the Jews of Paul's time had a different view of Scripture than what you're suggesting. [Here's the question:] Do you think we should try to understand Paul on his own terms from his own context, or that it's better to interpret his words how we see fit from our position today?”
December 16th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
Steve, thanks for the extremely interesting conversation! I so love to have people who disagree with me discussing issues like this one on the blog. It's all far, far more interesting when people disagree! I like being challenged to think more deeply.
Since this particular discussion has become so detailed and the post is fading into the past, I decided to create a new post for it. So if you're interested, after you answer my above question here you can continue the discussion there.
February 19th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Ah! Now that I have the time to write, I can actually respond to this:
“Forgot to answer Victor's question about the slippery slope: “If we assume that Scripture is errant, then we would have to conclude that God is errant as well. (We are arguing about the original manuscripts, not the Bible we have today). One could argue that because it was written by men, it was men who are errant, not God. Ok, then God just isn't as powerful as He is made out to be from the Scriptures” This seems, to me, quite a leap. We know that God doesn't micromanage us; He allows human error to exist; he allows evil to continue; He allows false declarations to be made about Him by false prophets and other such folk.”
It's only a leap in your theological mindset since you don't believe “God doesn't micromange us.” Sorry, but if God isn't in control of the little things, then He's not in control of the big things. But since you presuppose a God who doesn't micromanage, it is easy to see why you think that the original manuscripts contain error.
But I have to ask, why do you think He doesn't micromanage? How do you arrive to that theological understanding? Did you derive it from Scripture? But you know, if you believe Scripture is errant, perhaps your understanding is in error. After all, an errant Scripture could breed an errant understanding. Then again, how would you know anything is errant without a standard that is assumed to be inerrant? Your understanding has no solid footing and your presupposition undermines it all.
“He wants us to walk with Him and find our way by His light, not by second-hand information.”
Are you implying that Scripture is second-hand information? Clarify please.
“”If I can't trust that God has breathed an inerrant oringal manuscript, how can I trust that He has not erred in (fill in the blank)?” This seems to me like another leap. I know I can trust God because he has proven trustworthy in my life.
Let's see here. You can trust God because He has proven trustworthy in your life. Ok. How? By what standard can you say that He has proven His trustworthiness? I can easily say Scripture because I have faith in the inerrancy and infallibility of His Word, but under your errant view of Scripture, you cannot. You have nothing to measure God's trustworthiness because the very standard you would use contains “small errors and contradictions”.
“The Bible has small errors and contradictions because humans transcribed it, so I look for the spirit, and I read the words of Christ which are given in four variant Gospels that agree in spirit, though not in the letter.”
I never thought I would ask another Christian this, but could you please point out Scripture's contradictions? I can agree with you that there may be small errors in the Bibles we have today. But that is not we are arguing about here. We have been talking about original manuscripts. If the original manuscripts did contain errors, then no one would have a clue as to what is right and what is wrong since such transmission of errors would continue or be compounded in its future transcriptions. As I said before, you could never really know if God is trustworthy if the original manuscripts did contain error.
Now are you implying that each and every detail (”letter”) must be the same in each Gospel in order for them to be considered inerrant/non-contradictory? Just because one witness says one thing, and another says something else, does that always mean contradiction? If I have 5 fingers, do I not have 2 fingers? If I said I only had 2 fingers on my right hand, then claim that I have 5 fingers on my right hand, then that would be a contradiction. Is this the kind of contradiction you find between the Gospel accounts?
“Also, when I read the Bible, I think and pray.”
As do I.
“When I hear Scripture read and preached in church, I think and pray.”
As do I.
“Sometimes I disagree with the preaching; do I then leave Christ because one person spoke in a way I could not find credible?”
Same here, but if you are trying to relate this to the original manuscripts being in error, you still have no footing. You still have to prove that because men transcribed the originals that they would contain error. At best, it is an opinion that presupposes a narrow view of God's sovereignty that cannot be justified by Scripture, whether one is an errantist or not.
“So many Christian writers testify to the need for each believer to do their thinking in relationship to the Lord, testing the spirits (and words) to see whether they be from God: I find that credible!”
Amen. But how do you do that without any faith in the inerrancy of the original Scriptures? If my wife speaks in error, is my faith in her speaking truth justified? I don't see how you can reconcile your faith and trust in God with an errant view of the original manuscripts. If God can't even keep His original transcribers from making errors in their transmission of His word, it makes me wonder how much more He cannot do in preserving His word.