The Authority of Jesus « City of God

Posted by: Matthew | April 12, 2008

The Authority of Jesus

I’ve had some time to think about the (not-so) recent set of posts about inerrancy. Somehow the dialog has to move in a new direction. Going over the same old issues again simply will not solve the issue. So here is my attempt to find common ground. As Christians we all have Christ as our Lord. I take that to be true by definition. If Christ is our Lord, then we will do as he says. If he is our Lord then we will believe him when he teaches us. If we do not, then how can we call him Lord?

As far as I know, all Christians believe that the greatest commandment is that we love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength. If we love the Lord, then we will do as he says. Since Christ is the Lord, we will do as Christ says. I take it that this is uncontroversial for Christians. Nonetheless, we cannot do as Christ commands unless we know what he has commanded. So even our following after Christ depends on knowing what he has commanded.

Our only reliable source for knowledge of Christ’s commands is found in the Bible. We can hardly use intuition to determine what Christ would have commanded. There is no other reliable record of Christ’s words to us. I take this to be uncontroversial as well. Therefore, we must do what Christ commands us to do as recorded in Scripture. At this point, I am not claiming that Jesus commanded everything that Scripture records him commanding. We must simply use our well informed judgment on that matter. Unless we have reason to believe that Christ did not command something, then we believe that he did command it.

Christ does not only command actions, but he also commands belief. He commands that his disciples hold to his teaching (Jn 8:31) and he constantly condemns the Pharisees for failing to believe in him. He also rebukes the disciples repeatedly for failing to trust him. If we are truly to trust in Christ, then we must trust in the truth and accuracy of his teaching. If we do not, we are simply behaving as the disciples did, or worse yet, as the Pharisees did. I hope that this is all common ground. If so, then it is a short step from this to the idea that Christ has taught the authority of the Torah, given his disciples his own teaching authority and taught that the words of the prophets are the words of God. From there, the inerrancy of Scripture can be easily concluded.

Posted in Christ, Theology | Tags: authority, inerrancy

Responses

Hi! I stumbled across your post and wanted to offer my 2 cents:

“Our only reliable source for knowledge of Christ’s commands is found in the Bible. We can hardly use intuition to determine what Christ would have commanded…I am not claiming that Jesus commanded everything that Scripture records him commanding. We must simply use our well informed judgment on that matter”

you’re statements, when placed beside each other seem rather contradictory.

“we are truly to trust in Christ, then we must trust in the truth and accuracy of his teaching.”

Your argument referencing the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ rebuking of disciples and religious leaders fails to convincingly make this point.

“I hope that this is all common ground. If so, then it is a short step from this to the idea that Christ has taught the authority of the Torah, given his disciples his own teaching authority and taught that the words of the prophets are the words of God. From there, the inerrancy of Scripture can be easily concluded.”

Aside from my disagreeing with your hermeneutic method, you have failed to prove the #1 tenant of Biblical Inerrancy- that the Bible is 100% authoritative in areas of history and science.

Using internal arguments from Scripture does not prove that Genesis 1-11 actually happened, nor does it offer a defense against its duplication of Babylonian creation myths. Nor does it address the apparent plagiarism of Deuteronomy’s form and tenants from contemporaneous literatures. Nor does it address the apparent multiple authorship of Isaiah. Inerrancy has nothing to do with faith, quite the opposite actually. Inerrancy says we can believe Scripture in all areas because it can be scientifically proven to be true.

I think perhaps you are trying to defend infallibility, the doctrine that the Scripture is completely true and reliable for all aspects of religion, faith and practice that it teaches. This can be done with an appeal to Christ’s usage of the OT and claiming that discipleship is equal to living according to his teachings.

One last question though- Should we treat the 4 Christian Gospels as History or Historiography, and how does that fit into inerrancy?

Earl Barnett

By: Earl on April 12, 2008
at 3:38 pm

Earl, it seems that all you are doing is taking the opposite pole from the author of the article. All belief starts with presupposition, absolutely. Matt’s has stated clearly that his presupposition is “Jesus is Lord.” If so, the rest of the argument follows, and quite beautifully.

It also appears as though you’re expecting answers to questions that were not really in the scope of his original topic. Regardless of this, they’re valid question, and also have very valid answers, each with libraries of scholarship behind it.

It’s amazing the suspicion with which we hold the Scriptures in, because it’s a “religious text,” makes bold claims to truth, and has reshaped the world the past two millennia. But if one holds the book to the same scrutiny as other historical texts, it more than adequately passes the test. However, bias set against the Scriptures will of course provoke the same kinds of questions that are being asked.

By: Benjamin Allison on April 12, 2008
at 4:01 pm

Benjamin :

‘Inerrancy’ is a specific doctrine created during the late 19th century to confront the prevalent liberalism of the time and was specifically created in reference to the scientific and historical accuracy of Scripture. I don’t mind if someone holds that view, but if their attempting to prove that position then they need a solid line of argumentation. I was hoping to help the author see where they might want to rethink their argument because it comes off contradicting itself right from the outset.

I think perhaps the author intended to defend ‘infallability’ because if you swap ‘inerrancy’ with ‘infallability’ the argumentation seems much more valid.

Your last paragraph seems rather confronational and as though you’re talking past me and not to me. I never once called Scripture into suspicion, I simply implied that its dangerous to carry the Scriptures into realms they were never inteded to go. It seems very arrogant to think that while Genesis was being written the author operated under the same concept of truth that our society didn’t develop and accept until the Enlightenment. Genesis was not written by a scientist, but by a cultic leader who was touched by God. Borrowing argumentation from John Calvin and Peter Enns, why is it hard to believe that God spoke to his people in a way that was contemporaneous with them and their understanding of the world?

Living as a disciple of Christ is about faith, trusting in the things unseen- Inerrancy is about being able to see and then believing.

I look forward to hearing your response.

Mathew : Based on Benjamin’s comment I’m worried that my original comment will be read as antagonistic. While I am trying to encourage conversation and contemplation- not trying to cut you down or pick a fight.

Earl

By: Earl on April 12, 2008
at 4:24 pm

Earl:

“‘Inerrancy’ is a specific doctrine created during the late 19th century to confront the prevalent liberalism of the time and was specifically created in reference to the scientific and historical accuracy of Scripture.”

Do you have any evidence for this?

By: Andrew Fulford on April 12, 2008
at 7:07 pm

Earl,

Benjamin is correct in noting that some of your objections simply do not apply because they are outside the scope of my post. I am only claiming that Christians as such are those who follow the teachings of Christ. I hope that this is common ground in the debate over inerrancy.

The last two sentences of the last paragraph simply state my belief that this common ground is enough to support the traditional doctrine of inerrancy. I have yet to prove such a doctrine and haven’t done so yet.

You do mention an objection that fits within the scope of the post. You suggest that two of my sentences are contradictory. They are not. One sentence claims that the Bible is the only reliable record of Christ’s words. The other is that our well informed judgment is permitted to determine whether or not Christ said something. Let me demonstrate the consistency here.

Suppose Jesus is recorded saying “God hates all Samaritans” in one part of Scripture and saying “God does not hate all Samaritans” in another part. Those two statements are contradictory. If we assume that Jesus did not contradict himself, then he did not say one of these things. Which one did didn’t say would be determined by further analysis. The reliability of Scripture means that such cases would be few, but it does not mean that there would be none!

Finally, I must start with the reliability of Scripture rather than infallibility to avoid begging the question. It wouldn’t be a good argument if I did that.

By: Matthew on April 12, 2008
at 7:38 pm

Your last paragraph seems rather confronational and as though you’re talking past me and not to me. I never once called Scripture into suspicion

I’m simply extracting sentiments from your post. I do not wish to instigate or seem buligerent. Sorry if that was the case.

I simply implied that its dangerous to carry the Scriptures into realms they were never inteded to go.

It is far more dangerous to not take them far enough.

It seems very arrogant to think that while Genesis was being written the author operated under the same concept of truth that our society didn’t develop and accept until the Enlightenment. Genesis was not written by a scientist, but by a cultic leader who was touched by God.

He didn’t need to be a scientist. Genesis doesn’t describe anything explicitly scientific. Me saying “my meatball rolled onto the floor,” doesn’t say a word about friction, gravity, or the chemical composition of meatballs. Does that make it some how untrue or invalid because someone else has explained those things? No! Where is this reasoning coming from. It’s so common.

Picture this: God draws beside Moses and says, “Hey, Moses, these are the things I did. Write them down.”

Seems simple enough. We recount events to each other all the time, and God was pleased to do this as well (He still does today). So why does “post-Enlightenment” thought or scientific understanding even factor in? Why is the expectation even justifiable? There’s a disconnect.

Living as a disciple of Christ is about faith, trusting in the things unseen- Inerrancy is about being able to see and then believing.

This is confusing things. Blessed are those who believe (in the Lordship of Christ) and have not seen (corporeal evidence). This says nothing of having testimony to instruct us in the ways of Godly living, post-belief. God commanded the transcription of the 10 commandments — actually, He engraved them Himself. He spoke the Law to Moses, so that it could be written. God is pleased to make following His decrees easy (and readable). “Seeing and believing” does not apply to righteousness.

Inerrancy’ is a specific doctrine created during the late 19th century to confront the prevalent liberalism of the time and was specifically created in reference to the scientific and historical accuracy of Scripture.

I’m not sure this is the case. The Church Fathers considered epistles to be canonical almost immediately — that is, inspired Scripture, of the Lord (I posted elsewhere how if one believes the Scriptures are of God, but that they contain error, that they essentially believe in a non-existent entity).

But take your argument further; because Luther ignited Protestantism in the 1500’s, does that make it less valid, eternally? We are constantly learning new things about God and about His word. We are constantly being reminded of lessons long forgotten. The history of a certain philosophy’s development has no bearing of its truthfulness.

What did God say 2000 years ago 4000 years ago regarding His word? Much.

By: Benjamin Allison on April 12, 2008
at 9:30 pm

Andrew :
“The Old Princeton School, represented by Charles Hodge (1797- 187 and Benjamin B. Warfield (1851- 1921), developed strongly supernatural theories of inspiration, in conscious opposition to the naturalist approach favored by Herder… Although Warfield is careful to stress that the humanity and individuality of biblical writers are not abolished by inspiration, he nonetheless insists that their humanity ‘was so dominated that their words became at the same time the words of God, and thus, in every case and all alike, absolutely infallible.’ (Christian Theology by Alister McGrath pg 177)

This set the stage for the movement. Shortly thereafter Warfield’s assertions ‘The Fundamentals’ were published, solidifying the conservative response to the ‘humanizing’ of Scripture.

At this point I’ve set the stage for why and I’ll cite ‘The Fundamentals’ (published 1917) from the essay on inerrancy, ‘THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE — DEFINITION, EXTENT AND PROOF’, to validate my claims on science:

“They do not exist between statements of the Bible and facts of science, but between erroneous interpretations of the Bible and immature conclusions of science. The old story of Galileo is in point, who did not contradict the Bible in affirming that the earth moved round the sun but only the false theological assumptions about it. In this way advancing light has removed many of these discrepancies, and it is fair to presume with Dr. Charles Hodge that further light would remove all.” (source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund20.htm)

The most recent definition of ‘Biblical Inerrancy’ can be found from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that I found here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy

also, I take my definition of infallibility from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility#cite_note-inerrancy-1

There’s some synthesis involved, and I realize that Warfield was more defending authority than inerrancy, but his work was the beginning of the ‘inerrancy’ movement- so I label the idea as a late 19th century idea because that’s where the foundation was established. If you feel I’ve not proven myself I can get more sources, I’m just using what I have on the coffee table and what I’ve read on the internet.

Earl

By: Earl on April 12, 2008
at 10:16 pm

Mathew : Thanks for taking the time to respond. As far as the contradiction, I better understand what you meant now. Thanks for the clarification.

I also definitely understand that I keep going ‘out of bounds’ by extending the conversation outside of the scope of the post. My argument rested entirely on your usage of ‘inerrnacy’ and the attempt to establish it by appealing to our need to be obedient to Christ’s teachings. It seems as though you’re working from a separate definition of ‘inerrancy’ than what has been already established.

Quoting Summary 4. from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:
“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.”

Your conclusion statement- “From there, the inerrancy of Scripture can be easily concluded” falls short because rather than interact with the problematic aspects inerrancy- aknowledgement of inspiration and Jesus’ affirmation of it’s authenticity is a far cry for proving that Scripture is unbiased history (as we’d define history) and authoritative over modern science.

I realize you wanted to steer clear of those issues while trying to make a case for inerrancy, but with those are the foundational issues. Taking those away is like trying to preach the Gospel without talking about Jesus.

I do want to give you kudos on trying to find common ground, I know this post may not seem it but I also try to encourage unity and discourage division. I’ve really appreciated you guys pushing back and making me validate my statements.

Earl

By: Earl on April 12, 2008
at 10:36 pm

Benjamin :

you’re my last response tonight, so unfortunately you’re going to get the shortest one (I hope).

you said:”Genesis doesn’t describe anything explicitly scientific.”

I would disagree because Genesis teaches a literal history account of creation. A ‘big bang’ or ‘theistic evolution’ contradict this- if you hold to ‘inerrancy’ (as opposed to inspiration or authority- which are very different issues) you need to affirm that when Genesis teaches science, such as the creation account, the garden, the angel with a flaming sword inerrantly also. In the mind of the author of Genesis the creation story is 1) literal or 2) mythical. I’m assuming you’ll subscribe to 1, which is absolutely fine. Now you need to provide an account for the second telling of the story in Genesis, which I’m sure you can do. And then we need to provide an explanation for the sources of similar stories that predate Genesis’ writing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis#Ancient_Near_East_context

I would go into detail with them, but I’m tired and my copy of Incarnation and Inspiration, by Peter Enns (excellent book for faithfully addressing these issues) is in the hands of a friend. I’m just trying to prove that anyone seeking to say that Genesis is ‘inerrant’ without cutting corners has a large task ahead of them.

My post-Enlightenment comments refer to the nature that the doctrine of ‘inerrancy’ is a rather new doctrine. Its foundation was formed in 1900′ish and solidified as recently as the 1970’s. Many conservative institutions, such as Fuller Theological Seminary even reject ‘biblical inerranacy’ as making Scripture say things the author never intended on saying.

lastly, I’d encourage you to read my response to Andrew and briefly read through the citations I provided. Inerrancy is a very specific doctrine that claims the Bible is 100% historically and scientifically accurate. That belief comes from the cultural movement (ie. Enlightenment) that says truth can and must be empirically proven.

Hebrews ch.11 says faith is the hope in things not seen that seems completely contradictory to any belief that says truth must be empirically proven. I know Jesus rose from the dead because I have the Holy Spirit within me and I have been completely transformed by following Him, not because archaeologists cannot find the tomb.

Have a good Sunday, brother.
Earl

By: Earl on April 12, 2008
at 11:02 pm

“lastly, I’d encourage you to read my response to Andrew and briefly read through the citations I provided. Inerrancy is a very specific doctrine that claims the Bible is 100% historically and scientifically accurate. That belief comes from the cultural movement (ie. Enlightenment) that says truth can and must be empirically proven.”

I don’t see that reply, though perhaps it hasn’t made it through yet. I also can’t understand why inerrancy would require empirical proof; it simply is a commitment to believing that whatever scripture says, is true. That doesn’t have to imply we’d always have a way to answer empirical objections to scripture, sometimes we have to have faith in the absence of sight that Scripture is true. Matthew’s whole argument has been geared toward arguing for inerrancy based on an authoritative statement by Jesus, *not* by empirical proof.

However, I think it’s pretty clear that inerrancy was not produced by the Princetonians. E.g., St. Augustine wrote (ca. 405 AD):

I have learned to hold those books alone of the Scriptures that are now called canonical in such reverence and honor that I do most firmly believe that none of their authors has erred in anything that he has written therein. If I find anything in those writings which seems to be contrary to the truth, I presume that either the code is inaccurate [faulty manuscripts], or the translator has not followed what was said [wrong sense], or I have not properly understood it [misunderstanding on the part of the reader]. I think that you, dear brother [Jerome], must feel the same way. And I say, moreover, that I do not think that you would want your books to be read as if they were the books of Prophets or Apostles, about whose writings, free of all error, it is not lawful to doubt.

Notice too that, even with Augustine, inerrancy is held even in the face of empirical problems, which shows that the belief was not about or based on what could be proven empirically.

By: Andrew Fulford on April 12, 2008
at 11:29 pm

andew, my response to you is 3 comments up.

By: Earl on April 13, 2008
at 5:34 am

my ORIGINAL response to you was 3 comments up. My last comment came before reading your whole response.

Your Augstine quotation does show that the concept of no error being in the Scriptures didn’t orginate with Warfield. The problem is that inerrancy goes well beyond the Scriptures being without error. Perhaps it shouldn’t, but it’s too late to make that distinction. We cannot change the rules in the middle of the game, and theologians already came before us and said that inerrancy means Scripture is perfect history and science.

Also, unless I’m mistaken (I’m not as familiar with Augustine) Augustine was an allegorist- which means his hermeneutic allowed him to disregard the historical accuracy and troublesome or seemingly irrelevant accounts as having a ‘hidden spiritual meaning’. Augustine could make the ‘without error’ assertion because he wasn’t dealing with a contemporary superimposition of historical and scientific authority being superimposed upon the Scriptures.

Its absolutely cool if you’re an allegorist, but to say that the current doctrine of inerrancy started with Augustine is similar to saying that Luther’s concept of Justification through faith started with Augustine as well. I can’t help but see that as reading the present into the past.

Excellent quote from Augustine, btw. Did you read the citations I gave earlier though? you said you didn’t see my response and then said ‘Princetonians’ so I’m not sure if your last comment was in response or not.

Earl

By: Earl on April 13, 2008
at 6:28 am

Earl,
For reasons that I’m unsure about, one of your earlier comments got jammed in the internets and I had to manually approve it. That may have been the cause of some confusion about where this missing comment was.

It is up now.

Dan [Your friendly neighbourhood site admin :)]

By: Dan on April 13, 2008
at 12:44 pm

that makes so much more sense now. Thanks!

By: Earl on April 13, 2008
at 1:04 pm

Earl, I don’t see that any of your sources prove the doctrine originated with the 19C, only that people in the 19C believed it (in fact, one source even hinted that it was much earlier, since Galileo apparently believed it). The only one that could be construed that way was McGrath’s comment that Warfield “developed” his doctrine in contradiction to Herder. Firstly, McGrath gives no evidence for this in the sense that Warfield taught a doctrine substantially different from the orthodox doctrine of scripture through history, and secondly, simply citing a secondary source does not do much to overturn a primary source like Augustine.

“The problem is that inerrancy goes well beyond the Scriptures being without error. Perhaps it shouldn’t, but it’s too late to make that distinction. We cannot change the rules in the middle of the game, and theologians already came before us and said that inerrancy means Scripture is perfect history and science.”

Being without error covers errors in anything, including history and science, so Augustine’s words mean inerrancy, even if he does not specify every possible field of knowledge this applies to. The definition of inerrancy is simply: the Scriptures are without error, period. Prior to the advent of liberal critical scholarship, there was virtually no attempt to claim that the Bible was only right about some areas of its teaching (religion/ethics) and not about others (history). The vast majority of the church would have simply claimed it was true in everything it said, whatever might be the implications of what it said.

“Also, unless I’m mistaken (I’m not as familiar with Augustine) Augustine was an allegorist- which means his hermeneutic allowed him to disregard the historical accuracy and troublesome or seemingly irrelevant accounts as having a ‘hidden spiritual meaning’.”

In the context of that letter to Jerome, he’s talking about a historical event being disputed. Augustine was an allegorist, but clearly would never have claimed that the authors of scripture were ever wrong, just that we might misunderstand what they really meant by being too literal about it.

“Did you read the citations I gave earlier though? you said you didn’t see my response and then said ‘Princetonians’ so I’m not sure if your last comment was in response or not.”

I hadn’t seen your response, I just know this argument, as it’s a fairly stock objection to the traditional doctrine. People also argue that, instead of the 19C, the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy began in the 17C with the scholastics, the 1C with the Hellenistic Jews, or earlier with the legends about the Septuagint, among other possible origins.

By: Andrew Fulford on April 13, 2008
at 1:33 pm

andrew, I’ve weakly made the point of the doctrine’s contemporary form originates from the late 19th century. I’ll concede there, I still hold the view but just gave what I had handy, not in depth primary sources. (although I would consider the Fundamentals a primary source, simply because of the tremendous impact it has had an contemporary evangelicalism)

even looking at Augustine’s quotation I still fail to see the contemporary definition in his writings- although I readily concede that the concept of being ‘without error’ has readily been believed throughout the history of the church. The more I contemplate the issue I think I can agree that the ‘foundation’ of the movement was read into Augustine, similar to the manner I believe Luther read Justification into Augustine. I think a similar concept, abeit much less developed is present in Augustine’s thought. I just can’t see Augustine defining without error in the same unbiased, empirical method manner the Chicago Council superimposed on the definition.

so all that to say, I can see your point in Augustine being attributed with the original idea, but I disagree that ‘inerrant’ in Augustine’s mind would be the same thing as R.C. Sproul’s.

By: Earl on April 13, 2008
at 3:03 pm

Well, it probably wont persuade you, but just to add one more straw to the camel’s back: Augustine, despite interpreting Genesis 1 allegorically, believed the earth was approx 4000 years old (at his time) based on biblical chronology. That should inform us a bit about his view of scripture, I Think.

By: Andrew on April 13, 2008
at 3:33 pm

Augustine was also, as I recall, convinced that the Earth was flat. Given the time that he lived in, I’m sure he also believed that the sun went around it. I’m not saying this to be antagonistic, but simply to point out that many beliefs that were supported either explicitly or implicitly by the Bible have been overturned since Augustine’s day.

By: Dan on April 13, 2008
at 8:15 pm

I wasn’t really citing his belief as an example of Augustine’s inerrancy, just as testimony to his belief about Scripture.

By: Andrew Fulford on April 13, 2008
at 9:17 pm

Earl! Hope you had a great weekend and a blessed Sunday.

I would disagree because Genesis teaches a literal history account of creation. A ‘big bang’ or ‘theistic evolution’ contradict this- if you hold to ‘inerrancy’ (as opposed to inspiration or authority- which are very different issues) you need to affirm that when Genesis teaches science, such as the creation account, the garden, the angel with a flaming sword inerrantly also.

I do not agree. It doesn’t teach science. Let’s establish what science is:

1) the formulation of a hypothesis
2) the testing of that hypothesis through experimentation, observation, and falsification
3) the formulation of a theory based on collected data

Genesis does none of these things. It does not try to explain in depth any function apart from the utterance of God. It does not try to explain how it is matter came to be, how cells came to be, or how gravity came to be. All it explains is that God spoke all things into being. This is not science by anyone’s definition. It is a retelling of events.

if you hold to ‘inerrancy’

I’ll define clearly what I hold to:

I believe that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. I believe that God was pleased to use sinful men to achieve a sinless task. I believe that through His all sufficient strength He has held these writings together, over milennia, and has ensured their truthfulness. I believe that the Scriptures contain historical accounts, visions and prophecies, poetry, instruction for right living, and insight into the character and heart of God, and that these can be clearly identified and expounded upon by anyone, regardless of education, if they would simply come with humility and faith to the Word as it is. His Spirit and His Spirit alone illumens the student to truth and this truth is for all people, in all times.

And then we need to provide an explanation for the sources of similar stories that predate Genesis’ writing:

Why? I think this may reveal a bias you have established: the earliest writing is equal to ownership of the story. This need not be so. If God did create the world as it is told in Genesis, then every culture would have some version of this account!

This is the same reason why so many indigenous cultures have myths about a man building a big boat and saving all living creatures! When you start with the bias, “this is a myth,” a myth is all you see. You rationalize the story as some sort of meme that has evolutionary significance, or perhaps proves something about Jungian archetypes.

If you are an objective, open minded researcher, you push yourself away from your desk and gasp in utter shock that this “fable” is quite possibly true.

Consider this: I get into a fender-bender, and one of my friends happens to sees it. He phones another friend to tell them about it. This second friend sends an eMail to another friend. This third one passes my wife in the street and recounts the story to her.

But what does this mean for my story, when I at last get home? Do prior accounts discount my story’s truthfulness, simply because I’m telling it after another account? Does the fact that she heard a filtered, distorted version from a friend before my account mean that I was actually not the one in the car at all!? This reasoning just doesn’t bear out. What is being presented is a false choice.

If God wants to sit a servant down, millennia after the fact and millennia after all the tribes of the Earth have long since passed on their own oral accounts of the same event, that is His prerogative, and makes His account no less true and no less original.

A precedent record does not prove plagiarism.

I’d encourage you to read my response to Andrew and briefly read through the citations I provided.

I did. I also read his quote from Augustine. Let me state what I believe by “inerrancy”:

the Bible contains no errors

That is all. I am willing (with much reluctance) to admit that translation and scribe error could possibly creep in over 2000 years, and cause a letter here or there to go amiss. But with so many documents and so much cross-checking, peer evaluation, and community accountability, I find it unlikely that this is the case. I also trust that God has been remained faithful to us, and has not left us stranded on an island of error.

Hebrews ch.11 says faith is the hope in things not seen that seems completely contradictory to any belief that says truth must be empirically proven.

Brother I’m with you! Faith is God’s chosen currency. But I would challenge you that there is a bit of a tension we need to hold.

If this was true in quite the way your suggesting, Christ would not have taught out loud. He would not have made His resurrected body visible to hundreds. He would not have commanded His people to have festivals, set up landmarks, or keep written records of His commands.

He’d simply download all this into the mind of a person that was willing to be faithful.

But this is not so! God leaves records — I would suggest that He delights in them. Our Lord delights in actualized, concretized Truth. Romans proclaims that Creation is in fact a testament to God’s very existence, so that none of us are with excuse! God builds. He writes in stone. He has us eat and drink in remembrance of Him.

I know Jesus rose from the dead because I have the Holy Spirit within me

This proves it to you. Faith is proof. But faith is not primary to testimony — faith floods in after testimony, and after testimony alone. Someone told you about Jesus, yes? He did not just pop into your head one day, removed from the testimony of a friend or family member. Consider also, that this testimony comes from but one source — the Scriptures. You know Jesus lived because of a book. You know He claimed He was God because of a book. You know He was the Son of God because of book that through God’s will has been drenched in His power and pulls at the hearts of humanity.

God has, in His sovereignty, restricted Himself to certain means. You believe because of the illumination and testimony of the Spirit, but this very act is bound up in the retelling of the account. The Word alone gives life, and after birth it then flourishes.

By: Benjamin Allison on April 14, 2008
at 9:39 am

It seems odd to me that God would go to so much trouble to create a perfect, error-free text only to have scribes blow that perfection in subsequent reproductions.

By: John on April 14, 2008
at 10:07 am

John,

Well put!

By: Dan on April 14, 2008
at 10:24 am

“It seems odd to me that God would go to so much trouble to create a perfect, error-free text only to have scribes blow that perfection in subsequent reproductions.”

Why?

By: Andrew Fulford on April 14, 2008
at 11:30 am

To add some thoughts, I’ll quote someone else who responded to Bart Ehrman making the same argument:

What would it look like for God to superintend the textual transmission process in the simple and straightforward way that Ehrman demands? Well, first of all, there would be no copying mistakes. Every resulting manuscript, some taking days or weeks to complete, would be flawless reproductions. Any manuscripts slated for reproduction would be immune to stain or damage. The words “I intend to copy this” would be like a magical incantation, turning any document into Kevlar®, at least until copies were completed.

There would never be any liberties taken with the material by well intentioned, misguided, or malicious scribes. Such persons would either be mysteriously barred from scribal duties or would often find their pens acting on their own behalves. Scribal training and quality control would become superfluous because of every person’s uncanny ability to reproduce Scripture without error. In fact, the selection of the canon would have been automatic for the church fathers, since they could merely identify which texts were being flawlessly reproduced and which not. Copying the text blindfolded would be a popular party trick, and letting atheists try their best to make a flawed reproduction would be an evangelism tactic.

But possession of a flawless text would be only half the battle for Ehrman’s God. After all, what’s the point of having perfect revelation in a book if it can’t be perfectly transmitted into the eyes, ears, and minds of the people? For this reason, these perfect Bibles must make it into the hands of perfectly literate people who would perfectly comprehend it with the acumen of a master theologian. Either that or the evangelists and preachers must have photographic memories and flawless presentations. Language barriers would be no problem either, as every foreign encounter would be a guaranteed occasion to repeat the miracle of Pentecost. And leaving anything out, embellishing, or paraphrasing would be divinely prohibited. A commission to preach would instantly make one a walking Bible.

If this seems ridiculous, then at least some localized imperfections in the copies must be tolerated. But it does not mean that God cannot divinely preserve the content through history in more broad and subtle ways, or that the essential messages cannot be found in some of the worst reproductions. [from here: http://pspruett.blogspot.com/2006/02/
presupposing-perfection-bart-ehrman.html]

And here’s another perspective that predates Ehrman but deals with the same argument:

The fact that we cannot now see the inerrant autographa does not destroy the importance of the claim that they existed as such. As Van Til remarks, when one is crossing a river that has swollen to the point of placing the surface of the bridge under a few inches of water, he might not be able to see the bridge but he is very glad nonetheless that it is there! He would not think for a moment that this unseen bridge is without any significance and try to cross the river arbitrarily at just any other point. In looking at my present Bible I cannot see the autographa exactly, but I am most glad that inerrant originals undergird my walk and constitute a bridge that can bring me back to God. I would not arbitrarily try to be reunited with Him by just any other course. The value of my present Bible derives, in the long run, from its dependence on the errorless original, as is illustrated by R. Laird Harris:

Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it at 6 ½ inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking it with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on a platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value – if it has had a true standard behind it.

We conclude that even though we can be blessed without an errorless text and can formulate the great doctrines of the faith, the inerrant autographa are not thereby rendered unimportant, and the claim that God did not have to give the scriptural originals inerrantly is specious. God can work through our errant copies to bring us to saving faith, but that does not diminish the qualitative difference between the perfect original and imperfect copy – just as an imperfect map may bring us to our destination, but it is nevertheless qualitatively different from a strictly accurate map (e.g., in fine details).[from http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt042.htm

So, for me, the reasons already given to believe in inerrancy are sufficient for me to believe that God inspired the Scriptures, and the reasons given here are good enough for me not to expect that he would preserve only perfect copies of those scriptures. I don’t see the oddness, but I guess it’s just an intuitive thing.

By: Andrew Fulford on April 14, 2008
at 11:44 am

You are being captious when you ask “why?” Andrew. If you cannot see why that might appear strange, there’s nothing I can do. You have to accept there is some credibility to the statement, otherwise you’ll have to explain why people like Dan understand what I am getting at and people like you don’t.

By: John on April 14, 2008
at 12:01 pm

The first statement doesn’t seem ridiculous to me if God orchestrates the whole thing. If he can do it with one, and it is supposed be accepted as plausible, I am not so sure why I should find the other incredible.

By: John on April 14, 2008
at 12:08 pm

Furthermore, Van Til is arguing by analogy (as is the depiction of the pencil), and of course, the analogy presupposes the truth of an original, inerrant text. So what. I have to face the fact that there *are* errors at this present time, as you may or may not concede; however, it is extremely difficult for me to accept that at one time the errors which now occur in the text were straight perfections–since I have no way to tell otherwise, except for in writings of certain tendentious theologians who are attempting to secure their own faith. Moreover, all of it is in vain anyway, since the possible fact that the scriptures are not inerrant doesn’t prove Christianity false.

By: John on April 14, 2008
at 12:18 pm

I would love to be convinced of inerrancy, but when I read the scriptures I come across errors which cannot be resolved by methods you and others espouse, without me thinking that the proposed solution is highly implausible and tendentious. I accept that out of the Bible you do get the Word of God, but I am not going to conclude that because you can there must be no errors.

By: John on April 14, 2008
at 12:23 pm

“You have to accept there is some credibility to the statement, otherwise you’ll have to explain why people like Dan understand what I am getting at and people like you don’t.”

Of course there is some plausbility; that doesn’t mean I accept that, once analyzed, the argument has any. It just seems to prima facie. Because of that, I asked you to elaborate. If you don’t want to, then that’s fine of course.

“If he can do it with one, and it is supposed be accepted as plausible, I am not so sure why I should find the other incredible.”

He didn’t use the kevlar gospel incantation, or the repetition of the miracle of pentecost. All he had to do was guide the original writer. There is a massive difference in scale between guiding one writer to write something you choose and guiding millions of scribes and billions of hearers/readers to never write or hear an error. One has a much higher chance of being in tune with the natural course of things than the other. But as with your original argument, if you don’t see how this is the case, then I’m not sure how I could persuade you it was.

I’ll ignore the condescending remarks about the argument for inerrancy (”certain tendentious theologians who are attempting to secure their own faith”), since I think you’re a great chap Have great day.

By: Andrew on April 14, 2008
at 12:27 pm

First of all, you have a great day too. I hope your studies are progressing accordingly as you want them.

Second, I hope your “millions of scribes” is an intended exaggeration, otherwise I think you would be over-projecting just a tad.

Third, explain how the orchestration of the one is more demanding for an all-powerful God than the other. It seems He would be able to do both with the same relative ease. We are supposed to think that everything is subject to his will, even where he wills to leave somethings, but “everything” is certainly more than the millions of scribes . . .
Ultimately, it is not harder for God to do the one and not the other. For writers to start using the terms implausible and plausible in this particular argument seems a little hypocritical.

Fourth, you can safely exclude yourself from the “certain tendentious theologians”–I didn’t have you in mind when I wrote it. So if that is what you were thinking . . . . I actually respect, whether you believe it or not, a good many of the things you say (so you should be encouraged); nobody has made me change my own thoughts about inerrancy till I had a discussion with you (and to a lesser extent Ben and Keith as well). But my comment was not condescending at all, maybe a little ad hominem but certainly not condescending. Of course, I don’t believe that any of the theologians actually consciously think to themselves, “I need to secure my faith, therefore I will espouse this certain idea.” But I do think it can be a psychological root. The mere fact that it is an unnecessary doctrine for Christian faith, suggests to me, willy-nilly, that a security issue is in the works. Take it or leave it.

By: John on April 14, 2008
at 1:45 pm

Andrew: I briefly skimmed your discussion with John, so I’m not going to comment yet. I did reread all my stuff last evening and I found exactly where I developed my presupposition that ‘inerrancy’ during th late 19th century. Alister McGrath actually says that the doctrines were created during the ‘early to mid 19th century’ on pg 176 of Christian Theology: An Introduction.

Admittedly though, you cited a primary and I’m leaning on a secondary- so i’m planning on finding out where McGrath makes that assertion from. I’m still more likely to believe the opinion of an well respected and revered historian (McGrath) than a single Augustinian quotation, but I see plenty of reason to question McGrath’s statement and validate it’s truthfulness.

Augustine’s believing in a literal creation account just displays what Augustine believed. Because I do fall more under the ‘liberal’ banner, I think Augustine was a child of his culture and should be read as such. This is in contrast to some Reformed traditions that hold Augustine in a very high position. I read Augustine the same way I read Bultmann, well sorta’.

Benjamin:
You make a very good argument about the creation accounts. And while I think that explanation is very unlikely, it is a valid position. I never meant to imply you have the believe Genesis was myth or absolutely accurate, I meant to say that if you are going to hold to ‘inerrancy’ (which was defined by the Chicago Council) then you must believe what they said ‘inerrancy’ means.

I wasn’t trying to prove that Genesis was false, simply that ‘inerrancy’ forces a person into a corner where they cannot interact, or even acknowledge, the thematic and symbolic interactions with the prior accounts.

Your position on inerrancy is problematic when compared to the definition provided by the Chicago Council, which is why I’ve abandoned it’s usage. Your definition of Science is actually a definition of the ’scientific method’, just for the record. And the Chicago Council says that ‘inerrancy’ means the creation account in Genesis is accurate history, and therefore supersedes the need for empirical proof- God said it, therefore it is.

I agree that Genesis isn’t science, I personally hold Genesis as a record of oral history/ myth with stark differences to the contemporaneous cultures. But I don’t get to redefine what ‘inerrancy’ means, I either hold to what the majority has established or I don’t.

Based on your definition you and I agree completely on the fact that the Scriptures are without ‘error’. You said, basically, that you allow for genre when interpreting Scripture- which allows for my understanding of Genesis as ‘inspired myth’ as well as the OT historical books as a combination of legend (as with the some of the details of ‘Judges’ and ‘Joshua’ and historiography (’history is written by the winners’).

All that to say, you are more than welcome to assert that Scripture is without error, but if you call the Scriptures ‘inerrant’ you are making a claim that denies authorial intent, the opportunity of pseudopigraphal authorship and non-contemporaneous genre.

You said my bias was showing itself. I would agree completely. I am very biased. I think the concept that we can understand the Scriptures ‘unbiased’ is a fallacy. I think we should try to be unbiased, but ultimately our hermeneutic and our theology are manifestations of our culture. Culture is unavoidable. We may try to create a culture of ‘neutrality’, but by creating a culture rules and presuppositions (ie bias) are created.

This comment has gotten rather long winded so I’ll call it quits here. If I’ve missed something you wanted to discuss let me know.

Earl

By: Earl on April 14, 2008
at 2:25 pm

It seems odd to me that God would go to so much trouble to create a perfect, error-free text only to have scribes blow that perfection in subsequent reproductions.

Yes. Except for the fact that humans have license and some of us are sinful and malevolent. I mean, I can prepare a sermon, intentionally mistranslate an original portion of scripture, and probably not get hit by a bus on the way to church — that is, God might not intervene to prevent my misleading of His sheep.

So how do we handle this? A few things:

1) That exercise will fall away God lets sin run its course, but is ultimately faithful to His Word. That is, He will correct the course and place a limit on the effects one’s deeds can have so that His word will not return to Him void (so to speak).

2) As I said immediately following that comment (a portion it seems was read over):

“But with so many documents and so much cross-checking, peer evaluation, and community accountability, I find it unlikely that this is the case. I also trust that God has been remained faithful to us, and has not left us stranded on an island of error.”

I find it to be an improbability — an impossibility– that this was the case regarding the Scriptures and than an error has been baked in.

3) Andrew’s quotes sum up very nicely the defense for someone taking that view or at least show how doing so is not any sort of coping out.

* * * * *

This might seem like a dichotomy, but I both make the concession and I don’t. If someone proved that perhaps a town’s name had been misspelled or a zero was left off of a population count, I would be fairly unconcerned. In fact, I’d thank God that He had intervened by continued illumination. This would be as said, God being faithful to His word!

However, I do not believe that in all likelihood this has been the case, and that it has been preserved in a much more proactive way.

Also John, I looked more into the “Heli/Jacob” issue and there are reams and reams of explanations that are very much valid, and not in anyway stretches of logic. Some of them actually appear embarrassingly obvious once you bring the context of ancient Jewish culture and their use of genealogies into focus. Though being 2000 years removed we may not be able to settle on a definitive, “Ah, theory C is in fact correct,” I think we are able to rest in Faith that God’s given us means by which we can know Him, without which we can know essentially nothing.

“How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?”

Since the oral tradition has long been swallowed up, and since any reliable spoken testimony is impossible, we have but one preacher, and it is in the form of a book.

By: Benjamin Allison on April 14, 2008
at 2:39 pm

Yes. Except for the fact that humans have license and some of us are sinful and malevolent.

All of us are, Ben, all of us. On that matter, how are the original authors qualitatively different in that regard? What about the witnesses upon whom they relied. Luke in particular makes it plain that he did not see much of what he records. He is quite frank about investigating it.

Moreover, it is likely that many of the authors had secretaries record their words. Paul might have been inspired, but was his scribe? If you’re going to introduce this as an explanation, I see no reason for it to not to go back to the very first hand or mouth.

By: Dan on April 14, 2008
at 2:51 pm

“Third, explain how the orchestration of the one is more demanding for an all-powerful God than the other.”

I’m not saying it’s harder; for God, something is either possible or impossible, in my opinion. My point is just that the amount of miraculous intervention required to remove all possibility of error in copies is much much higher that it would be to remove them in the case of one writer. I can’t see how that isn’t clear, just on a mathematical level. Your argument was not aiming at proving the position logically impossible, and my response was not aiming to prove that yours is logically impossible; I’m answering an aesthetic argument (i.e., “that’s not fitting” with an aesthetic argument, as far as I can see. If God at all wants to the world to run in a way that things are predictable, there is some value in him not constantly intervening; for this reason it’s not hypocritical for inerrantists to say that intervention on the scale required to eliminate all errors would work against that purpose on God’s part. It’s not an airtight argument, but I think it’s reasonable.

“But I do think it can be a psychological root.”

I guess I felt like it was a bit condescending because you’re reducing all the arguments to that very unsophisticated and basic motivation. I could just as easily come up with some plausible ulterior motive for non-inerrantists (e.g., “wanting to feel accepted by the elite liberal academy or the media, wanting a paycheque from a non-conservative seminary/school, etc.”), but I don’t like to do that kind of thing because it’s usually not fair. The best representatives of both sides have more integrity than that, at least I think that charity would require us to assume that until proven otherwise.

By: Andrew on April 14, 2008
at 3:05 pm

Moreover, it is likely that many of the authors had secretaries record their words. Paul might have been inspired, but was his scribe? If you’re going to introduce this as an explanation, I see no reason for it to not to go back to the very first hand or mouth.

Yes. I agree there is difficulty. Always room for messing up. For things to go wrong (and thanks for your correction Dan — yes we ALL are sinful, not just some of us!).

But it comes down to Divine provision and protection. A sinful author is not great thing for God. He uses us all the time, despite our sin, in moments of pure and undefiled service. Even we experience His grace in this way. That an author could bark at His wife or not pay all His taxes, or simply be a bit lazy that day, and then be visited by God Almighty in a moment of Inspiration is no challenge for God.

So, let’s concede that we have an inspired “author” but perhaps a not-so-inspired scribe. So? If it’s God’s Word ultimately, and He wishes it preserved, there is not human obstacle that can prevent Him from getting His way.

Why are we getting hung up on the fact that scribe might have been slacking off? Are God’s arms so feeble that He can not roll the failingness of man aside to achieve His ends?

We’re talking about an omnipotent, omniscient God here. One that raises people from the dead. One that (whether you put stock in the Big Bang and Evolution or not) created all that exists!

In act, we know that He uses us precisely because of our failings, so that He would be all the more glorified! There is no greater contrast than great contrast (if you catch my meaning). I would argue that, given the spiritual economy of our World, the authors of Scripture had to be sinful, and it is for this reason:

that God’s glory and power and guidance could be clearly seen to arise up out of a den of scoundrels.

The feat of the Scriptures is not one that humans have the shoulders to carry.

By: Benjamin Allison on April 14, 2008
at 9:09 pm

Haha. I’m sorry for the OT post but I have to break up the intensity: Andrew I keep thinking your avatar is a UFO. You’re getting your arguments from aliens, aren’t you…

By: Benjamin Allison on April 14, 2008
at 9:11 pm

And while I think that explanation is very unlikely, it is a valid position.

Why do you think it is unlikely that God communed with Moses in an accurate way, and that contemporaneous (good word — thanks!) accounts are not lesser, diluted, oral myths of the same event?

Your position on inerrancy is problematic when compared to the definition provided by the Chicago Council, which is why I’ve abandoned it’s usage. Your definition of Science is actually a definition of the ’scientific method’, just for the record.

Then I’ll have to use another word or define my own. However, in holding that the Scriptures are without error, that forces into uncomfortable waters when we deal with passages that are historical, no?

For example, I believe I can make a very plain, easily defensible case that the Creation account was intended to be a historical account, and I believe that from Scripture, it is the strongest argument that can be made (as opposed to it’s being a mere myth or allegory). So, if it is history, then it’s making claims that you are having a hard time with… where do we go from there?

Based on your definition you and I agree completely on the fact that the Scriptures are without ‘error’. You said, basically, that you allow for genre when interpreting Scripture- which allows for my understanding of Genesis as ‘inspired myth’ as well as the OT historical books as a combination of legend (as with the some of the details of ‘Judges’ and ‘Joshua’) and historiography (’history is written by the winners’).

It does allow for that, but again, if we are going to work from Scripture as our starting point (and it must be… it must be) then the stronger argument is made with one that says, “Genesis recounts the history of creation.”

Also, considering something like “historiography,” this then means that if the Scriptures are inspired, and without error (as you said you agreed to), then God is a confuser and a deceiver.

Consider: something can only be without error through the work of God — He alone is without error and has the ability to create something without error and sustain it in it errorless state. A history that masks truth so as to present some more favourable and mythologized account, is untruthful — that is, error, and when done knowingly, that is sin.

Even if the biased passage had been written purely of man, it would still be sin (as such a man would know the truth, and could have chosen to record an integrous account, even if it made him and his people look bad). This then would mean — however you slice it — there is sin lining the pages of Scripture. This cannot be so.

When I say that the scriptures are free of error, I mean that they tell with complete accuracy and neutrality, what has actually taken place in our world (when a passage concerns itself with history).

In fact, this too is true of prophecy, though we have not yet the eyes to see the reality unfolding in the heavenlies.

All that to say, you are more than welcome to assert that Scripture is without error, but if you call the Scriptures ‘inerrant’ you are making a claim that denies authorial intent, the opportunity of pseudopigraphal authorship and non-contemporaneous genre.

I believe in layers. Paul had intentions in writing to his fledgling churches. Jeremiah was royal pissed, personally, at his people. David whines a bunch.

And yet, in spite of their subjective groanings, the Lord not only used them but wait: inspired them. This is not an “either/or.” It is the marvelous mystery of the Divine. That somehow in humanness and frailty, God is moving, and weaving something perfect from what appear to be threadbare lives. This again speaks to His brilliant strength — that this Book can be of mankind and altogether separate from it.

You said my bias was showing itself. I would agree completely. I am very biased. I think the concept that we can understand the Scriptures ‘unbiased’ is a fallacy.

Hey, bias away! You are right. It is inescapable. I was simply pointing it out. In doing so (and as you return the favour) we sharpen each other. Keep your bias — it might not be wrong at the core. But when we can go ,”Ahh… wait, there’s that part of me again,” we can better average out our thoughts and perhaps come away with something a little bit less infused with our DNA.

* I’m tired and it’s late, so I’m not proof reading this comment… I apologize for typos, unintended fragments, or non sequiturs. I’ll fix them tomorrow!

By: Benjamin Allison on April 14, 2008
at 9:32 pm

OT: Actually Ben I’m 90% certain that Andrew’s avatar is the interior of the Pantheon in Rome.

By: Dan on April 14, 2008
at 9:49 pm

Sorry guys, Church of the Holy Sephulcre in Jerusalem

By: Andrew on April 14, 2008
at 10:35 pm

OT: I knew it was a church, but every now and then when I’m not thinking I’ll see it and think, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind?”

By: Benjamin Allison on April 15, 2008
at 7:05 am

“Why do you think it is unlikely that God communed with Moses in an accurate way, and that contemporaneous (good word — thanks!) accounts are not lesser, diluted, oral myths of the same event?”

In all honesty, because it seems much more like the character of God, as I’ve come to know him through experience, to speak through the context of culture and in a way the people would understand as opposed to a historically accurate method. Though, please be aware I’m not saying your argument is invalid at all.

“Also, considering something like “historiography,” this then means that if the Scriptures are inspired, and without error (as you said you agreed to), then God is a confuser and a deceiver.”

The problem with your line of argument is the assumption that we think like God thinks. A ‘lie’ to us may easily have been an understood literary genre of the time. I wouldn’t carry that assumption as far as Bultmann does (ie. the resurrection was hyperbole) but I think that we’re being rather arrogant assuming that God 1) holds our epistemological concept 2) that Moses and the Israelites held it as well. Unless I’m mistaken, everything I’ve read about John Calvin exhibits that he shared my theory (or rather, I share his) on God speaks to us in ‘baby gibberish’ (ie. within our cultural and epistemological framework) because He desires a relationship with us. That doesn’t make me right, it just establishes a historical precedent for what I’m proposing.

Historiography encapsulates the concept that a history was recorded to persuade the reader to share the author’s belief. Joshua presents a complete conquest and then later an incomplete conquest- I would propose to encourage the Israelites to not become complacent. Mathew was written to specifically challenge Jews that their Messiah had come. Acts was written to prove the superiority of the Gospel. I’m not saying they are necessarily inaccurate, I’m saying they were more concerned with achieving the goal in the heart of the reader than a perfect record of history. From my understanding, this example of history is contemporaneous throughout the world’s history as well. Why wouldn’t God work through the people’s presuppositions to communicate His message?

I’m not saying that the historical account is erroneous, I’m saying that I don’ t think it mattered all the much to the authors of narrative in Scripture and therefore should matter as much to us.

“Consider: something can only be without error through the work of God — He alone is without error and has the ability to create something without error and sustain it in it errorless state. A history that masks truth so as to present some more favourable and mythologized account, is untruthful — that is, error, and when done knowingly, that is sin.”

I disagree on everything but the fact that God is without error. God is without error simply because He defines the standard. He’s also above the rules. I didn’t read the quoted paragraph until after I wrote my last one. I’d reference you there for my answer- although I get the feeling we’re going to have to ‘agree to disagree’.

As far as ‘inspired’ I think we’ll have to agree to disagree as well. I personally hold that ‘inspiration’ came in different ways to different authors but universally were affirmations following their writings. The author wrote it, and THEN God said ‘That’s Right!’ and gave it His stamp of approval. I think somehow He superintended the process as well and also used ‘inspired editor’ as with the amazing composition of our current OT order. I picked this concept up from Walt Brugemann’s book ‘the Psalms of Life and Faith’ (or something like that, I can give you the exact quotation if you need it- I’m just to lazy to walk to my books right now). I’m pretty sure we disagree on that issue though. I’m absolutely cool with you holding that God was more interactive on the front end, it just seems more plausible to me that it happened on the back end.

I appreciated you comment on the ‘personal DNA’. It was a good reminder that interpretation isn’t purely an academic affair. I sometimes forget that.

Earl

By: Earl on April 15, 2008
at 5:02 pm

that last post was directed at Benjamin

Also, I just realized I never bothered to offer my post from a few weeks back about Inerrancy and why I reject it.

http://earlbarnett.com/wordpress/?p=68

Earl

By: Earl on April 15, 2008
at 5:10 pm

[...] you can find the post here: City of God [...]

By: Inspiration and Incarn… I mean Inerrancy | EarlBarnett.com on April 15, 2008
at 5:12 pm

Andrew, I just traveled down to Texas today that’s why I haven’t responded. I wanted to extend my apologies to you personally if you thought I was being offensive.

Also I think you would be right in saying that there is a similar psychological root in non-inerrantists, so it is by no means something particular to inerrantists.

Peace and Joy.

I’ll settle in here, TX, and then pick up the convo. later.

By: John on April 15, 2008
at 8:40 pm

In all honesty, because it seems much more like the character of God, as I’ve come to know him through experience, to speak through the context of culture and in a way the people would understand as opposed to a historically accurate method. Though, please be aware I’m not saying your argument is invalid at all.

Granted, experience is very important. I hold very strongly to the belief that we find ourselves in God. That our relationship is individuated and in one sense, unshared.

There is, however, one very large problem in using experience as a truth gauge. See, you were not born and raised in northern Africa. You are not a pre-Messianic prophet. You are not a forerunner to the completion of God’s perfect plan in Christ. You are not a patriarch to His once chosen people.

All of that is to say, your experience of God is Earl’s experience of God, and based on the argument presented, then we have reason to doubt most of what we read. Our experience would lead us to the conclusion that lifelong cripples don’t get up and dance. That angels are myths. That people don’t rise from the dead — even the Son of God.

We have no justification in putting our experience ahead of the testimony of Scripture in this way. If we do, then everything disappears.

Also, consider the burning bush. God’s transcribing the 10 Commandments. God instructing Moses regarding the rest of the Law. None of these things happened? Based on your experience, no. But apparently based on Moses’ experience, He spoke with God. Clearly we need to leave room for the fact that our experiences are not all defining.

The problem with your line of argument is the assumption that we think like God thinks.

We do. Our moral centre was created by God. We share it with Him as we were made in His image. Though sinful, though imperfect, though clearly not God, let us not forget that the imago dei in us — it is our existential grounding.

Also consider that the lie is the most simple of sins. The most common sin. It is the sin we are often first acquainted with in ourselves. It needs no explanation or qualification.

A ‘lie’ to us may easily have been an understood literary genre of the time…we’re being rather arrogant assuming that God 1) holds our epistemological concept 2) that Moses and the Israelites held it as well.

We do. There are fads in thinking, sure. But we hold as much in common with God as the Israelites did. Our very humanity leads us to certain conclusions and predicaments. Further, we have the illumination of the Holy Spirit. What room do you leave for Him? I hear so much from so many people about, “We’re so far removed. We can’t know.” I think this is simply a weak argument regarding the understanding of the Scriptures. It ignores the fact that God is committed to His Children, and sends us one of His very persons to ensure we know Him and know with clarity the things He has done on Earth.

The redemption of Christ makes no sense unless the history of God’s people has been accounted for — it is a continuum, and God has preserved our understanding, just as He preserves our understanding in new covenant matters. The Spirit shines light and makes the impossible possible. It harmonizes us with the truth.

God speaks to us in ‘baby gibberish’ (ie. within our cultural and epistemological framework) because He desires a relationship with us. That doesn’t make me right, it just establishes a historical precedent for what I’m proposing.

But He is redeeming us to something outside of our context. The Spiritual is not tied to fads of thinking. God is God and His truth has always been with Him. He calls us upward to that which is not tarnished by time and soil and blood.

His wisdom appears as foolishness to us.

I’m saying they were more concerned with achieving the goal in the heart of the reader than a perfect record of history. From my understanding, this example of history is contemporaneous throughout the world’s history as well. Why wouldn’t God work through the people’s presuppositions to communicate His message?

God could and possibly did. This doesn’t exclude the possibility that the facts are also correct. Consider that God’s bias is in fact truth.

I’m not saying that the historical account is erroneous, I’m saying that I don’ t think it mattered all the much to the authors of narrative in Scripture and therefore should matter as much to us.

It does when you consider that, as I argued a few lines ago, that we understand Christ when we are also presented with the “anthology” of all that God has done on the Earth. It is a recounting of God’s works. Truth matters here. There is more at stake than mere history. There is too much interdependence. Too much riding on things actually happening that reveal the miraculousness and necessity and eternality of God’s plan.

The author wrote it, and THEN God said ‘That’s Right!’ and gave it His stamp of approval…I’m absolutely cool with you holding that God was more interactive on the front end, it just seems more plausible to me that it happened on the back end.

Again, I see this as a both/and! We know that the heart is evil above all things so any insight into the Kingdom is provided by Holy Illumination. Now, kingdom insight is perhaps separate from “history,” but I would argue that the breath of inspiration carries truth with it, and truth alone. Why are we more justified in believing that God wasn’t pleased to preserve historical fact? Why is this a safe or desirable argument to make?

I appreciated you comment on the ‘personal DNA’. It was a good reminder that interpretation isn’t purely an academic affair. I sometimes forget that.

And thank you! We so often take our beliefs forgranted. Thanks for the challenge!

By: Benjamin Allison on April 17, 2008
at 8:16 am

Ben,

I’ve heard you use arguments of this sort before:

Further, we have the illumination of the Holy Spirit. What room do you leave for Him? I hear so much from so many people about, “We’re so far removed. We can’t know.” I think this is simply a weak argument regarding the understanding of the Scriptures.

It occurs to me that you are making a tremendous sort of sotto voce assumption here. How are you to say that Earl’s reading (which is similar to mine on these topics, to be honest) is somehow excluding “room” for the Holy Spirit? Is it not possible someone can come to these conclusions because of, and not in spite of the HS?

By: Dan on April 17, 2008
at 8:57 am

Benjamin:
“We have no justification in putting our experience ahead of the testimony of Scripture in this way. If we do, then everything disappears.”

I’d say it’s dangerous, but the fact that we don’t see it in the modern world gives much reason to question the testimony of Scripture. Christianity hangs on a literal resurrection though, without a literal risen Christ. From there one can easily go ‘well if that has to be fact then what else may be…’. That is far from the fideist perspective, but it seems completely viable and justifiable.

“Our moral centre was created by God. We share it with Him as we were made in His image. Though sinful, though imperfect, though clearly not God, let us not forget that the imago dei in us — it is our existential grounding.”

You made an excellent defense for why we don’t step on baby’s and kick homeless folks, not why believing in a single universal culturally transcendent interpretive method and thereby one single correct interpretation is correct.

Your ‘leave room for the Holy Spirit’ argument is ‘apples and oranges’ to what I’m talking about. I completely believe that anyone anywhere can pick up a copy of the Scriptures in their language and recieve not only the Gospel, but also a perpetual source of everything spiritual a person will need to live a righteous, fruitful life with God. That doesn’t mean that Moses 1) literally spoke with God and 2) wrote down the information the way it really happened without any embellishment or hyperbole. Now, it doesn’t prove the opposite either- but I’m fine with Genesis being true in your opinion.

To expand this concept a little further, James 4 and 1 Peter 5, as I noticed for the first time this evening, are definitely related. I’m not sure if James copied Peter, if Peter copied James, or if they both copied a third source- but there is definite plagiarism going on. Tonight I was very interested in identifying the source of this information, where they may have picked their ideas up from, where James and Peter developed their concept of ‘the Devil’ from, etc. That critical approach is far different than the one I use when I read the Scriptures for God to speak to me and chasten my life. I see no reason for the help of the Spirit in scholarly scrutiny, but I always need to go back afterwards and ask ‘what does this mean to my life?’ with an open mind and heart.

Not everyone agrees with that compartmentalization of study, but I think you’re more of a holistic interpretation person and that’s why you saw my method as forsaking the Spirit. Is that at all accurate?

“we understand Christ when we are also presented with the “anthology” of all that God has done on the Earth.”

I’m still not convinced that Christ wasn’t read back into the OT using a midrashic method because Paul and the Disciples didn’t know what to do with a messiah that was so unlike what the Scriptures had fortold. Once again though, my bias is showing. Perhaps I have such little faith that I cannot believe a God who is big enough, but perhaps I believe in a God who is beyond needing to conform to what I think His interaction in inspiration should be. I have days where I think I’m too liberal and others where I’m worried I’m far too conservative.

Thanks for the dialogue though.

By: Earl Barnett on April 18, 2008
at 10:42 pm

How are you to say that Earl’s reading (which is similar to mine on these topics, to be honest) is somehow excluding “room” for the Holy Spirit? Is it not possible someone can come to these conclusions because of, and not in spite of the HS?

Dan, I know I can always count on your for questions that really make me give a “grown up” defense for my beliefs. Thanks for holding me accountable!

Short answer:

No. Because the arguments don’t even mention the miraculous, except when holding it in suspicion! At the core, the working model is based in humanistic thinking. You’ve expressed before that you hold Holy Spirit tutelage with great suspicion, so why is it at all reasonable that you’ve arrived at your arguments because of Him?

Most of the arguments being presented focus entirely on human issues, human challenges, and human wisdom. They do not include the miraculous, or the Divine. Instead, the reasoning is almost entirely founded on strains of human wisdom. They pose human weakness as difficulty for God, and ignore that His ways are higher than ours, and that He does what we cannot.

Long answer:

Now, I do not think that Earl is in anyway “without the Spirit,” or that I have some sort of portion that others are lacking. However, I repeatedly make the point you ask me about because people repeatedly make statements that reveal how eager they are to exclude the Holy Spirit from their intellectual life.

In this whole discussion on inerrancy and Scriptural authority, I’ve read in your posts, along with comments by John and Earl, a preoccupation with our weakness and limitation. Of course, you will recall from my philosophy in science series that I’m very much on the “humans lack” train! We are but dust.

The irksome point for me is not that we lack, it is that we are positioning our lack as an obstacle for God. The focus is on ourcontext. Our subjectivity. Our isolation from the past.

To that I say, “Big ‘effin deal.”

We serve a God who has raised people from the dead. Hear that. Our stuntedness is no match for His educative endeavours. Living in a post-Enlightenment, Western society is nothing — it is nothing — for the Ancient of Days. Nothing!

He who is outside of all constriction — He who holds all reality in continuance — is not in anyway dissuaded from the tutelage of His children because of Kant or Nietzsche or Cubism or a university education or Coca Cola ads or, or, or… How great is the burden of our culture and its concepts and perspectives to the shoulders of God? It is nothing.

The comments being made and the contentions being raised make it clear that we are prone to give the influence of the Divine in intellectual matters a second-class standing, otherwise these “complications” would be deserving of nothing more than a passing comment. So much talk of the difficulties and of the challenges. So much talk of theory and human wisdom. So much talk of what is impossible, and so little of the comforting truth that nothing is impossible with God.

I would submit that the reason people take issue with the Scriptures — even Christians — is thanks to extra-Biblical scholarship. Of course, embracing the extra-Biblical is not inherently wrong. In fact, we even use the extra-Biblical in apologetics (Josephus, Pliny the Younger, etc).

The issue is that it has eroded the crucial base of mystical, childlike faith.

For example, Earl made comments to the effect that I’m somehow applying a much more rigorous theology to the writers of the Scriptures than is justified; that I am asking of them things which are unfair to ask. I would argue I am asking next to nothing of them. I am merely believing their testimony. “So, that’s the story you’re telling me? Hey, I believe you!” There is no approach to the Scriptures that could be less exacting or more fair. In this way I reduce my “me” footprint on my interpretation of the Scriptures. How is it less advisable to take them at their word! Come on! Honestly, when we are clearly dealing with a book of history, we regard it as… historical! It’s as simple as that. Contrary evidence be damned.

No, it is the skeptic — the one that spends more time reading critique than the Word itself — who is passing the Scriptures through an undeserved gauntlet.

“See! The history is off! See! The numbers don’t line up! See! Neighboring cultures said X,Y, and Z! We have studies and experts and courses and books and essays…”

Rubbish! Instead, give me the God who’s anxious to set his people apart! Apart! Give me a God who uses the foolish to shame the wise. Give me a God who makes friends with hookers and tax collectors and homeless people — the very dregs of the Earth — so that He might reveal His miraculous power to transform. Give me a God who takes what is unworthy and unwise — give me a God who takes the least of these — and builds His kingdom with them so as to display His great and awesome power. Give me this God and keep the naysayers. Those that hold miracles with suspicion. Those that doubt God can indeed preserve His word even to the last generation of mankind. Keep the libraries of words written in discreditation of this Book that has in almost complete independence of anything else, changed the world for God. Keep away from me the heart that shrinks back from a ghostly Tutor, and instead seeks fellowship with all who say such a Tutor is mere superstition and that one would be better to take a course at a “reputable institution.”

Have we forgotten: the Prince of the Air can write books too. He can find facts too. I will take my chances with the one Book that speaks of God, His deeds, and His character. I will take my chances with the one testament to Him.

Somehow this is unwise! So be it. I’ll gladly be considered unwise. Let us not forget: His weakness is greater than our strength. His ways, higher than ours. In all matters of doctrine and truth He is to be trusted above all other things, and He has sent us a Companion to ensure that we believe what is right and true, and no cultural divide will ever separate us from this — He is His Word, He speaks to us still, and there is no obstacle — not time, not language, not culture — but our hearts and our hearts alone.

The absolute tragedy and irony is that those who do not seek do not find. Those pleased to go through life believing God does not commune with His children in a certain way — in a miraculous way — will never experience such moments. Faith is the currency of the Kingdom, and a closed heart will not open unless its owner turns the key.

God is pleased to let the skeptic remain as He is. Oh, to salvation He warms us. But we are then responsible to ascribe to Him maximal glory and to be pliable to His “foolishness” which has and will shame the wise. Suggesting that He is too weak to preserve His word does not achieve this end and rather, opposes it.

By: Benjamin Allison on April 19, 2008
at 3:13 pm

Christianity hangs on a literal resurrection though, without a literal risen Christ. From there one can easily go ‘well if that has to be fact then what else may be…’.

What on Earth is the basis for this? Are you saying the “risen Christ” was somehow a copy or replica? That Christ was somehow destroyed? This needs some clarification.

Your ‘leave room for the Holy Spirit’ argument is ‘apples and oranges’ to what I’m talking about. I see no reason for the help of the Spirit in scholarly scrutiny, but I always need to go back afterwards and ask ‘what does this mean to my life?’ with an open mind and heart.

I can see what you’re saying, and don’t totally disagree with you… but here’s the point:

No one will be a better instructor in scholarly issues that the Holy Spirit.

Why is it preferable for you to study in your own wisdom, then apply that personally derived understanding to your life rather than to seek God for His teaching, and then apply that instruction to your life?

Why is it preferable at any point in the study of God’s word to opt to “go it alone?” What is the rationale, and why will the end result be more beneficial?

I’m still not convinced that Christ wasn’t read back into the OT using a midrashic method because Paul and the Disciples didn’t know what to do with a messiah that was so unlike what the Scriptures had fortold.

All I would say is that again, this all comes down to where you start from: the human looks to His humanity for a point of reference. Why not instead decide to be recklessly sold out to the miraculous and the Divine? Why is doing the former the better choice?

In the end, here is what we are left with: intentions. Earl, I don’t know you, and don’t want to judge or condemn your intentions, so I’m not going to hypothesize about yours. I’ll talk about mine.

I hate when people disagree with me. Often, “discussions” become, for me, an opportunity to “win,” and better an opponent, so to speak. This, while possibly a strength (as it gives way to tenacity, which we are in need of in ministry), is most often, a weakness. It’s fleshly. Human. It is something in me I recognize as possibly causing offense.

So there’s some insight into my impetus — at times. However, when dealing with matters of the Word, there arises a tenacity that is counterposed with the fleshly side of me — it is out of care.

As I said, I don’t know you. BUT but but, you are my brother if you confess the Resurrection and Godhood of Christ. Moreover, you are my brother with a brotherhood that rivals that of blood. So, though I don’t know you, I don’t mind being blunt and seemingly harsh because I sincerely have care. This care I’m talking about is specifically in the area of surrender. That you (and anyone else) would at least try the total abandon of self. The complete abdication of what seems logical and reasonable, and fall wholly on the Scriptures, bringing to them no doubt or scrutiny. My experience is that people become more empowered and greater vessels for Ministry in doing so. That is, they are able to be used maximally of God, and are also able to reap maximal benefit.

Why does this matter regarding something like History or Science? Because firstly, it is an attitudinal issue: “God, here’s ALL my doubting! Take it!” In the abdication of Self, His grace floods in and brings a higher, more intimate understanding that cannot be experienced other wise. It feels different in the mind and the heart.

Secondly, because we have but one record — one record — of what God has done in the midst of His people. One record of the theme of Christ, woven through actual events. It has power and significance both because — listen — it is actual, and because the scenes leading up to the climax are actual. This actuality when removed, diminishes the miraculous, diminishes the graciousness, and diminishes the brilliance that God has woven into reality. Anyone can pen a fiction. Anyone can pen a historiography. Anyone can. But only God can move mountains and string together actual history with a plot. God alone can do this, and we know full well that God likes to do things in exclusion (there is one God, one chosen people, one covenant — replaced by not concurrent — with a new one; there is one Way, one Truth, and one Life — God relishes exclusivity and singularity).

If this all sounds grandiose, fine — it can be no other way!

By: Benjamin Allison on April 19, 2008
at 3:43 pm

Benjamin:
“What on Earth is the basis for this? Are you saying the “risen Christ” was somehow a copy or replica? That Christ was somehow destroyed? This needs some clarification.”

I was actually conceding that there is at least one miraculous event that we can agree on. The resurrection of Christ is essential to Christianity. People don’t become martyred for hyperbole. Even if the Gospels are 100% unbiased history in the sense we would expect them, something very important and life changing happened. They wouldn’t stop saying that Jesus rose from the dead and they didn’t recant in the face of death. That doesn’t prove 100% accuracy, but it does prove that they believed in what they said. Many of our liberal brethren would disagree, but I cannot fathom a Christianity without a literal resurrection. Once we establish that the resurrection must held as true, regardless of physical science it becomes more plausible to believe the other miraculous events happened. I figured you’d be happy that at least you and I could agree with that as a foundation. Somehow I didn’t communicate that thoroughly I guess.

I’m probably brining my end of the conversation to a halt though, just because it feels like we’re going in circles and not getting anywhere, but..

1) I don’t think any less of you or your faith for your faith in Scripture’s historical accuracy. It is completely valid for a believer to say ‘I believe what it literally says.’ I believe what it says too, but I’m coming from a different starting point and I think that’s what’s making the big difference for you and I.

2) I appreciate the dialogue and concern for my spiritual welfare. I’m very used to being attacked and berated by conservative folk, and I’ve found the conversation to be engaging and having felt cut down or accused of destroying the foundation of anything- so thank you.

Earl

By: Earl Barnett on April 19, 2008
at 6:38 pm

You’ve expressed before that you hold Holy Spirit tutelage with great suspicion,

Let’s slice this a little thinner. I hold the claims of those who say that they experience such tutelage in any great detail with a hefty amount of suspicion. Without denying such experiences, I think it should be readily apparent how open they are to abuse and how powerful the human mind is when projecting its own desires.

By: Dan on April 19, 2008
at 8:22 pm

Earl;

THANK YOU for qualifying that! I’m in total agreement with you. Marvelous insight.

And attack? How sad the things we do to each other. Nothing pushes someone away more than attack, and I too am guilty of this at times! We are ultimately called to Unity — we are to be one as Christ and the Father are one. At the end of the day, all these issues get a big, “So what?” If you profess a risen Christ, and if you are continually being transformed into His likeness, that is really all that matters. As we mature — you and I — our doctrine will very well change as we move toward the Centre of Being and the Centre of Wisdom. Surely he will give our brains a jog as needed. But as I said, we’re brothers, and so we are able to shrug off these differences, exchange a holy embrace, and go into the place of worship together.

Dan;

Of course, I agree with this as well. There are no shortage of people ready to swoop in, throw the “I’m a Prophet!” line around, and hoodwink millions, either for money, fame, or something far more devious.

We are told to judge the spirits, so your suspicion is actually in line with Biblical wisdom — let’s test each other and make sure we’re all on the right track.

So, what is the measuring stick? How do we know, “Hey, this person does hear from God,” or, “You know what? They have these issues of doctrine right.”

Firstly, is the person in question actually profession the exclusivity and actuality that Christ is Risen, and that Christ is Lord. If so we know that His children hear His voice — we all do — in some form or another.

The next thing we look for are the Fruits of the Spirit? Is this person truly loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good-willed, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled?

Of course, we are all to be growing in these things and so we will lack here and there, but generally are these things present and increasing? If so, that means the Spirit is present and active. If the Spirit is present and active, then so too is the potential for Holy Illumination.

Thirdly, does this person have the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, teaching, or prophecy? That is, in their normal routine, do the things they say penetrate people’s hearts and help them to in in turn go on and live better lives? This is the real proof.

When one speaks, and lives are changed; when one exegetes, and people go away better versions of themselves; when one teaches and chains fall off; we are dealing with someone who hears.

Even when this happens in small ways, and in frequently, the very fact that someone can be transformed by words shared by someone’s investigating the Scriptures, bears witness to the fact that they are listening. That things are speaking out to them, and that they are being quickened by the Spirit (you’ll notice I’ve been tying these two things together — the Scriptures and the Word).

When dealing with multiple people, all claiming to have an interpretation or insight, the ans