"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
[I'm a bit busy at the moment and unable take the couple of minutes necessary to refute the silly arguments of Dr. Mohler's gross ignorance of the Scriptures and evolutionary theory. Not that Karl Giberson, vice president of the BioLogos Foundation, does much better defending his position. But I have argued the point elsewhere. You can find my many articles on the subject below under "Evolution".]
By Bob Allen
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- According to the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, evolution and Christianity are not compatible.
"The theory of evolution is incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ even as it is in direct conflict with any faithful reading of the Scriptures," Albert Mohler, head of the Louisville, Ky., school, wrote in his blog.
Mohler's Aug. 25 blog posting was an open letter in response to an Aug. 21 Huffington Post article that accused him of making false statements about Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who originated the concept of natural selection to explain the diversity of life.
Karl Giberson, vice president of the BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group formed to promote harmony between science and faith, reacted in the Huffington Post to comments critical of Darwin by Mohler delivered June 19 at an annual conference of Ligonier Ministries, founded by Calvinist theologian and pastor R.C. Sproul.
Giberson first questioned Mohler's critique of Darwin in an open letter July 6 on the BioLogos website. After waiting two months for a response, Giberson concluded in the Huffington Post article that Mohler "does not seem to care about the truth and seems quite content to simply make stuff up when it serves his purpose."
In his June speech, Mohler argued for the "exegetical and theological necessity" of affirming the universe is no more than several thousand years old and was created in six 24-hour days as recorded in Genesis.
Mohler said Bible passages like Romans 8 attribute death, pain and disaster to the fall of Adam as recorded in Genesis 3.
"We end up with enormous problems if we try to interpret a historical fall and understand a historical fall in an old-Earth rendering," Mohler said, referring to the school of interpretation that views a metaphorical reading of the creation passages in Genesis as compatible with both Christianity and evolutionary science. "This is most clear when it comes to Adam's sin."
"Was it true that, as Paul argues, when sin came, death came?" Mohler asked. "Well just keep in mind that if the Earth is indeed old, and we infer that it is old because of the scientific data, the scientific data is also there to claim that long before the emergence of Adam -- if indeed there is the recognition of a historical Adam -- and certainly long before there was the possibility of Adam's sin, there were all the effects of sin that are biblically attributed to the fall and not to anything before the fall. And we're not only talking about death, we're talking about death by the millions and billions."
Giberson, author of Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, objected primarily in the Huffington Post article to Mohler's suggestion that evolution was "invented" to prop up Darwin's worldview rather than to explain observations in the natural world. He called it a "common misrepresentation" that evangelicals use to discredit evolution.
In his earlier blog post, however, Giberson questioned other statements in Mohler's address. They included: "We need to recognize that disaster ensues when the book of nature or general revelation is used in some way to trump Scripture and special revelation."
"I am taking you to mean that we should not let information from outside the Bible change our minds about what is inside the Bible," Giberson wrote.
"The example in your talk would suggest that information from geological records, radioactive dating, cosmic expansion and so on -- all of which suggests that the universe is billions of years old -- should not persuade us to set aside the natural reading of Genesis which suggests that the Earth is young," he wrote. "Is this a fair statement of your position?"
Giberson observed that the "natural reading" of Psalm 93 is that the Earth is fixed and cannot be moved. "Indeed this was thrown at Galileo and got him in trouble for proposing an 'unbiblical' astronomy."
He said "natural" readings of other Bible passages also suggest that slavery is OK and the moon is a light-creating body similar to the sun and "not just a big rock."
"Is there not a long list of examples where general revelation has forced us to set aside special revelation?" Giberson asked in his open letter to Mohler.
Mohler conceded in his blog to one statement that "appears to misrepresent to some degree Darwin's intellectual shifts before and during his experience on the Beagle" but otherwise proclaimed that "I stand by my address in full." He said he plans to address some of the issues raised by Giberson in the coming months.
"If your intention in Saving Darwin is to show 'how to be a Christian and believe in evolution,' what you have actually succeeded in doing is to show how much doctrine Christianity has to surrender in order to accommodate itself to evolution," Mohler admonished Giberson.
"In doing this, you and your colleagues at BioLogos are actually doing us all a great service. You are showing us what the acceptance of evolution actually costs, in terms of theological concessions."
Showing posts with label Inerrancy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inerrancy. Show all posts
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Jesus' Favourite Books and Music
Do you know what Jesus’ favorite books of the Bible were? If we base our assumptions on the Gospel accounts, Jesus frequently quoted Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Daniel and Psalms - particularly the Psalms!
He and the disciples sang a few psalms before leaving the Last Supper (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26) to go to the Gethsemane gardens. Even when he was receiving the standard Roman welcome on Golgotha, he was thinking of a psalm (Matt 27:46; Matt 15:34; cf. Psalm 22:1).
Yes, Jesus liked music. Probably due to the influence of Mary - she wrote psalms!Luke 1:46-55. She was just forbidden to explain them!
He and the disciples sang a few psalms before leaving the Last Supper (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26) to go to the Gethsemane gardens. Even when he was receiving the standard Roman welcome on Golgotha, he was thinking of a psalm (Matt 27:46; Matt 15:34; cf. Psalm 22:1).
Yes, Jesus liked music. Probably due to the influence of Mary - she wrote psalms!Luke 1:46-55. She was just forbidden to explain them!
"Deacons" for "Elders", "Ministers" for "Elderess"
It is a well-known fact that many Southerns Baptist churches have a leadership structure in which “deacons” effectively perform the function of “elders”. Such churches do not recognize "elders" as such and do not use the term in any sense. This interchangeability of terms rarely causes a problem in churches. Neither English term is actually found in the New Testament Greek Bible.
Of course, the New Testament Greek terms for “pastor” (poimen), “overseer” (episkopos), and “elder” (presbyteros) are virtually synonymous (Acts 20:17, 28). The term “elder” (presbyteros) (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17-18; Tit 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1-4) can refer either to chronological age or to a specific ministry within the Church.
The title itself suggests spiritual oversight, for elders fulfilled certain ministries such as anointing the sick (Jas 5:14) as well as preaching, teaching, admonishing and guarding against heresy (Tit 1:9). Therefore, an “elder” is a believer whose has the Christian maturity (the fruit) to mentor another Christian. Women are called to this function (1 Tim 5:2) just as men are (1 Tim 5:2).
In 1 Timothy 5, Paul refers to both “elder” (presbytero) and “elderess” (presbyteras). In Titus 2, Paul uses a slightly different word for “elder” (presbytas) and “elderess” (presbytidas). Both are adjectival forms of the terms of 1 Timothy 5. In the context of the Pastoral Epistles and with regard to the similarity between the requirements of both in the 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 2 chapters, it appears obvious that Paul is speaking of the same function. This conforms to the Biblical support for female prophets (Ex 15:20, 21; Jud 4:4, 5; 2 Kin 22:12-20; Is. 8:1-3; Joel 2:28; Lk 2:36; Ac 21:9; I Cor 11) and female apostles (Roman 16:7).
Nevertheless, I believe that individuals are called by God and that ordination is the church’s recognition of what the Holy Spirit has already done in the life and ministry of an individual believer. The Church does not always accurately discern the Holy Spirit in this matter and, thus, some Christians are ordained who have not been called and others who have been called have not been ordained. I do not believe that a church’s error in such a case invalidates the call. An individual can still perform the function of a deacon and pastor whether or not they are formally recognized as such.
Therefore, since almost every Southern Baptist church not only permits but encourages spiritually mature women to be involved in evangelizing, encouraging, discipling, worshipping, serving, admonishing, praying, and setting a faithful witness to what God has done in their lives through Christ, I am quite content to let the Holy Spirit work out this issue in his own time. Within the local church, I prefer to remain silent on the contentious subject.
Apparently, many Southern Baptist churches have adopted the same approach. Instead, of a woman serving as "Administrative Pastor" or "Children's Pastor", we have women serving as "Minister of Administration" or "Children's Minister" and, one that I recently noticed, "Director of Administration" and "Director of Children's Ministry".
Think about it: Minister, Director, Manager, Executive, Administrator, Supervisor, Advisor, Principal, Superintendent, Officer, Controller ...
Just so long as a church doesn't use a term found in an English Bible Southern Baptists will not be able to exclude them for having a female functioning as a "pastor".
This is how we know the egalitarians are going to win!
Of course, the New Testament Greek terms for “pastor” (poimen), “overseer” (episkopos), and “elder” (presbyteros) are virtually synonymous (Acts 20:17, 28). The term “elder” (presbyteros) (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17-18; Tit 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1-4) can refer either to chronological age or to a specific ministry within the Church.
The title itself suggests spiritual oversight, for elders fulfilled certain ministries such as anointing the sick (Jas 5:14) as well as preaching, teaching, admonishing and guarding against heresy (Tit 1:9). Therefore, an “elder” is a believer whose has the Christian maturity (the fruit) to mentor another Christian. Women are called to this function (1 Tim 5:2) just as men are (1 Tim 5:2).
In 1 Timothy 5, Paul refers to both “elder” (presbytero) and “elderess” (presbyteras). In Titus 2, Paul uses a slightly different word for “elder” (presbytas) and “elderess” (presbytidas). Both are adjectival forms of the terms of 1 Timothy 5. In the context of the Pastoral Epistles and with regard to the similarity between the requirements of both in the 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 2 chapters, it appears obvious that Paul is speaking of the same function. This conforms to the Biblical support for female prophets (Ex 15:20, 21; Jud 4:4, 5; 2 Kin 22:12-20; Is. 8:1-3; Joel 2:28; Lk 2:36; Ac 21:9; I Cor 11) and female apostles (Roman 16:7).
Nevertheless, I believe that individuals are called by God and that ordination is the church’s recognition of what the Holy Spirit has already done in the life and ministry of an individual believer. The Church does not always accurately discern the Holy Spirit in this matter and, thus, some Christians are ordained who have not been called and others who have been called have not been ordained. I do not believe that a church’s error in such a case invalidates the call. An individual can still perform the function of a deacon and pastor whether or not they are formally recognized as such.
Therefore, since almost every Southern Baptist church not only permits but encourages spiritually mature women to be involved in evangelizing, encouraging, discipling, worshipping, serving, admonishing, praying, and setting a faithful witness to what God has done in their lives through Christ, I am quite content to let the Holy Spirit work out this issue in his own time. Within the local church, I prefer to remain silent on the contentious subject.
Apparently, many Southern Baptist churches have adopted the same approach. Instead, of a woman serving as "Administrative Pastor" or "Children's Pastor", we have women serving as "Minister of Administration" or "Children's Minister" and, one that I recently noticed, "Director of Administration" and "Director of Children's Ministry".
Think about it: Minister, Director, Manager, Executive, Administrator, Supervisor, Advisor, Principal, Superintendent, Officer, Controller ...
Just so long as a church doesn't use a term found in an English Bible Southern Baptists will not be able to exclude them for having a female functioning as a "pastor".
This is how we know the egalitarians are going to win!
Thursday, April 29, 2010
PC Answers Questions to a Doctoral Student on Evolution and Religion
Last year a doctoral student at a university in Tennessee discovered my blog and a few discussions on Baptist online forums of which I had taken parting 2003. The student was researching the issue of evolution and religion for his dissertation, and I am apparently one of only a handful of evangelical Baptists that accepts the theory of biological evolution. Doesn’t speak well to the validity of my position, does it?
Nevertheless, the student sent me a few questions whose answers I shall now post.
First, are you currently a Baptist pastor?
No. I am a Baptist looking for a ministry in which to pastor.
I’ve pastored in churches in Texas and North Carolina.
I’m a son of a Baptist pastor and a grandson of Baptist missionaries.
Oddly enough, while I have been looking for ministry work in Southern Baptist churches, my wife and I have been attending a Methodist church here in Ohio, partly because it is like a Southern Baptist church we enjoyed in Texas.
And just this past Sunday, the pastor (a conservative and an inerrantist) made an aside comment that Christians should not be beating each other up over evolution.
Second, many people with whom I've talked have told me that the SBC has gotten increasingly fundamentalist in the last couple of decades. Would you agree with that? Any comments on it?
I include this lengthy response because I it might be of interest to you.
Yes, that is unfortunately true. I have fundamentalist friends and family, and I both love them and thoroughly enjoy ministering with them. And while I do not agree with many of their distinct positions, I don’t care that they have them.
The SBC has always been a very conservative body of Christian believers. The vast majority are conservatives in which there is a very large block of fundamentalists of various sorts. There have always been a significant minority of moderate Baptists and a very insignificant minority of liberals. The leadership of the SBC was made up of moderates and conservatives.
As I’m sure you are very much aware, the issues of biological evolution and the interpretation of the Bible caused tremendous controversy in the SBC during the 20th century. Under pressure from fundamentalists and conservatives, the SBC leadership wrote a confession of faith in 1925 and amended it in 1963. Both of these versions state the orthodox Christian beliefs that God created the world and that the Bible is authoritative. Moderates and many conservatives sought to be present an inclusive document.
However, in the 1980s, conservatives (with fundamentalist leaders) began to use their denominational leadership positions to reform the structure of the SBC to prevent anyone but conservatives from being appointed to positions in the organization. At the same time, conservatives began to fire all the non-conservatives that were already in SBC positions. They also fired conservatives who were critical of the other firings and the takeover. This continued through the 1990s and culminated in the conservatives and fundamentalists amending the confession of faith in 2000. After it was adopted, every employee of the SBC was required to sign this document or be fired. Many, many were fired or made a hasty retreat before they were. By itself, the implementation of this confession and its fall out had the SBC reeling from the inside out.
However, the 1963 version of the confession included a prologue that explicitly stated that this document was “not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.” This allowed SBC employees (particularly seminary professors) from holding positions contrary to the 2000 confession just so long as they do not teach or preach otherwise. The last decade of the SBC has been repeated incidences of fundamentalist weeding these employees out and getting them fired.
What occurred in the SBC seminaries during the 1990s and 2000s has now begun to occur in Baptist colleges such as Carson Newman in TN and, most recently, at Truett-McConnell College in Georgia which plans to become the first Baptist college to require its faculty to affirm the 2000 confession.
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4671/53/
Many of the same fundamentalist leaders are involved.
None of the three Baptist confessions (even the fundamentalist penned version of 2000) reference the issue of evolution either explicitly or implicitly.
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp
But there are many issues important to SBC fundamentalists on which there is less than solid convention support. And there is very little support for amending the Baptist confession.
Therefore, for the past few years, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC has been using the trustee system of the various convention agencies, including the seminaries, to enact theological standards which would not pass via the regular practice of convention vote.
I mention all this because if you’re asking about the SBC becoming increasingly fundamentalistic and how this relates to evolution and education (particularly in TN), then this is what has been done to the Baptist seminaries and what is now being done at the Baptist colleges.
Third, and this is related to the second question, how common are your views on evolution among evangelicals? As I said, from my own perspective, they seem extremely rare.
From my perspective, I assume that they are very rare too. Most evangelicals seem to associate biological evolution with atheism.
But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that most Southern Baptists who accept the theory of biological evolution would keep it to themselves.
Obviously, biological evolution isn’t mentioned in 2000 plus year old documents that make of the Bible. It’s certainly unessential to the Faith. A Christian can reject evolution and still have a healthy and productive spiritual life. And it’s not an issue with which the average pastor, religious teacher, or church confronts. Combined with its controversial nature, for a pastor or religious teacher to announce their support for the theory would only be a distraction from the essentials.
In my four years at seminary, I never heard a professor state their position on the issue. Only one student ever stated his position to me and only through commenting on my blog. During that time, I only heard two SBC leaders make statements at seminary denouncing biological evolution, and both of them are two of the three recognized individuals who led the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention.
Given this and all I mentioned regarding the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention, I think it’s quite understandable that many SBC employees and pastors would keep their position quiet.
Fourth, in the baptist discussion board I read when you were talking about Brady Tarr, you were talking about reading Genesis as an apocalyptic text. What do you mean by that? I'm afraid I'm not theologically trained.
It was a hypothesis I had then that I have yet to pursue any further than you have read. I have only met one Old Testament scholar (a friend) who holds this position. I’ve never seen it in any other paper, article, or book that I can find.
The Apocalyptic genre of literature essentially presents a “spiritual” interpretation of history. It offers a “behind-the-scenes” view of what is going on with particular events and peoples and how it relates to God and the writer of the apocalyptic work’s intended audience. Apocalyptic literature is popularly known to focus on future events, but it just as often comments on present and past events. The Biblical books of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are prime examples but there are others in and outside the Jewish and Christian canons.
Apocalyptic literature will use symbolism, word play, exaggerated actions, fantastic creatures, “angelic beings”, truncated history, and otherworldly scenarios. This Biblical genre has a lot in common with basic dreams and many apocalyptic passages will occur in the context of a dream (Daniel chapters 2, 4, and 7; but also, as I will argue one day, Genesis 28, 40, and 41). The first three chapters of Genesis contain symbolism, puns and word play, fantastic talking animals, “angelic beings”, and many other apocalyptic characteristics that I’ll argue. The connection to the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2 is my favourite.
But even though my apocalyptic argument has yet to be made, many other evangelical and conservative scholars who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and the Genesis story hold the story to be figurative but true because its genre (whether poem, psalm, apocalypse, “myth”, short-story, etc.) permits to be non-literal but true.
Ask a fundamentalist about whether he or she believes that the book of Revelation is true. Naturally, he or she will say yes that they do, even though it is written in symbolic, non-literal language.
Fifth, have you been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky? I don't think it's far from you, but I figured you'd have blogged about it if you had gone. Any comments on it?
I have not been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
It was this question of which I was reminded while reading the Baptist Press article on “Noah’s Ark”. The Baptist Press quoted a statement from Answers in Genesis, the apologetics ministry that operates the Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. I currently live just over an hour away from the museum but have yet to visit.
Nevertheless, the student sent me a few questions whose answers I shall now post.
First, are you currently a Baptist pastor?
No. I am a Baptist looking for a ministry in which to pastor.
I’ve pastored in churches in Texas and North Carolina.
I’m a son of a Baptist pastor and a grandson of Baptist missionaries.
Oddly enough, while I have been looking for ministry work in Southern Baptist churches, my wife and I have been attending a Methodist church here in Ohio, partly because it is like a Southern Baptist church we enjoyed in Texas.
And just this past Sunday, the pastor (a conservative and an inerrantist) made an aside comment that Christians should not be beating each other up over evolution.
Second, many people with whom I've talked have told me that the SBC has gotten increasingly fundamentalist in the last couple of decades. Would you agree with that? Any comments on it?
I include this lengthy response because I it might be of interest to you.
Yes, that is unfortunately true. I have fundamentalist friends and family, and I both love them and thoroughly enjoy ministering with them. And while I do not agree with many of their distinct positions, I don’t care that they have them.
The SBC has always been a very conservative body of Christian believers. The vast majority are conservatives in which there is a very large block of fundamentalists of various sorts. There have always been a significant minority of moderate Baptists and a very insignificant minority of liberals. The leadership of the SBC was made up of moderates and conservatives.
As I’m sure you are very much aware, the issues of biological evolution and the interpretation of the Bible caused tremendous controversy in the SBC during the 20th century. Under pressure from fundamentalists and conservatives, the SBC leadership wrote a confession of faith in 1925 and amended it in 1963. Both of these versions state the orthodox Christian beliefs that God created the world and that the Bible is authoritative. Moderates and many conservatives sought to be present an inclusive document.
However, in the 1980s, conservatives (with fundamentalist leaders) began to use their denominational leadership positions to reform the structure of the SBC to prevent anyone but conservatives from being appointed to positions in the organization. At the same time, conservatives began to fire all the non-conservatives that were already in SBC positions. They also fired conservatives who were critical of the other firings and the takeover. This continued through the 1990s and culminated in the conservatives and fundamentalists amending the confession of faith in 2000. After it was adopted, every employee of the SBC was required to sign this document or be fired. Many, many were fired or made a hasty retreat before they were. By itself, the implementation of this confession and its fall out had the SBC reeling from the inside out.
However, the 1963 version of the confession included a prologue that explicitly stated that this document was “not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.” This allowed SBC employees (particularly seminary professors) from holding positions contrary to the 2000 confession just so long as they do not teach or preach otherwise. The last decade of the SBC has been repeated incidences of fundamentalist weeding these employees out and getting them fired.
What occurred in the SBC seminaries during the 1990s and 2000s has now begun to occur in Baptist colleges such as Carson Newman in TN and, most recently, at Truett-McConnell College in Georgia which plans to become the first Baptist college to require its faculty to affirm the 2000 confession.
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4671/53/
Many of the same fundamentalist leaders are involved.
None of the three Baptist confessions (even the fundamentalist penned version of 2000) reference the issue of evolution either explicitly or implicitly.
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp
But there are many issues important to SBC fundamentalists on which there is less than solid convention support. And there is very little support for amending the Baptist confession.
Therefore, for the past few years, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC has been using the trustee system of the various convention agencies, including the seminaries, to enact theological standards which would not pass via the regular practice of convention vote.
I mention all this because if you’re asking about the SBC becoming increasingly fundamentalistic and how this relates to evolution and education (particularly in TN), then this is what has been done to the Baptist seminaries and what is now being done at the Baptist colleges.
Third, and this is related to the second question, how common are your views on evolution among evangelicals? As I said, from my own perspective, they seem extremely rare.
From my perspective, I assume that they are very rare too. Most evangelicals seem to associate biological evolution with atheism.
But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that most Southern Baptists who accept the theory of biological evolution would keep it to themselves.
Obviously, biological evolution isn’t mentioned in 2000 plus year old documents that make of the Bible. It’s certainly unessential to the Faith. A Christian can reject evolution and still have a healthy and productive spiritual life. And it’s not an issue with which the average pastor, religious teacher, or church confronts. Combined with its controversial nature, for a pastor or religious teacher to announce their support for the theory would only be a distraction from the essentials.
In my four years at seminary, I never heard a professor state their position on the issue. Only one student ever stated his position to me and only through commenting on my blog. During that time, I only heard two SBC leaders make statements at seminary denouncing biological evolution, and both of them are two of the three recognized individuals who led the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention.
Given this and all I mentioned regarding the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention, I think it’s quite understandable that many SBC employees and pastors would keep their position quiet.
Fourth, in the baptist discussion board I read when you were talking about Brady Tarr, you were talking about reading Genesis as an apocalyptic text. What do you mean by that? I'm afraid I'm not theologically trained.
It was a hypothesis I had then that I have yet to pursue any further than you have read. I have only met one Old Testament scholar (a friend) who holds this position. I’ve never seen it in any other paper, article, or book that I can find.
The Apocalyptic genre of literature essentially presents a “spiritual” interpretation of history. It offers a “behind-the-scenes” view of what is going on with particular events and peoples and how it relates to God and the writer of the apocalyptic work’s intended audience. Apocalyptic literature is popularly known to focus on future events, but it just as often comments on present and past events. The Biblical books of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are prime examples but there are others in and outside the Jewish and Christian canons.
Apocalyptic literature will use symbolism, word play, exaggerated actions, fantastic creatures, “angelic beings”, truncated history, and otherworldly scenarios. This Biblical genre has a lot in common with basic dreams and many apocalyptic passages will occur in the context of a dream (Daniel chapters 2, 4, and 7; but also, as I will argue one day, Genesis 28, 40, and 41). The first three chapters of Genesis contain symbolism, puns and word play, fantastic talking animals, “angelic beings”, and many other apocalyptic characteristics that I’ll argue. The connection to the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2 is my favourite.
But even though my apocalyptic argument has yet to be made, many other evangelical and conservative scholars who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and the Genesis story hold the story to be figurative but true because its genre (whether poem, psalm, apocalypse, “myth”, short-story, etc.) permits to be non-literal but true.
Ask a fundamentalist about whether he or she believes that the book of Revelation is true. Naturally, he or she will say yes that they do, even though it is written in symbolic, non-literal language.
Fifth, have you been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky? I don't think it's far from you, but I figured you'd have blogged about it if you had gone. Any comments on it?
I have not been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
It was this question of which I was reminded while reading the Baptist Press article on “Noah’s Ark”. The Baptist Press quoted a statement from Answers in Genesis, the apologetics ministry that operates the Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. I currently live just over an hour away from the museum but have yet to visit.
Monday, April 23, 2007
How one can believe the Bible is wrong and still be an inerrantist
Do you recall this post: The Height of Goliath
“The Bible records the famous strife between David and the giant Goliath, ending with the defeat of the latter. Goliath was "six cubits and a span" in height--over nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4). However, an earlier translation of this tale found in the Dead Sea Scrolls puts Goliath at just under two meters tall, rather than three meters as had been written in later versions. This greatly increases the validity of claims that Goliath may have been a real person, being gigantic in stature compared to the average height of a man in the early classical era of around 1.6 meters compared to around 1.75 today.”
Allow me to create a scenario.
A Christian OT professor reads the story of David and Goliath and comes to the conclusion that the story is too ridiculous to be true. The professor confesses that he does not believe that Goliath was 9 feet tall as the Bible records. He thus states that the Bible is wrong. This person has now just refuted a belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture.
Now a second Christian OT professor reads the story of David and Goliath and comes to the conclusion that the story is too ridiculous to be true. The professor decides to reevaluate the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (circa 800 CE), the Septuagint Greek text of the OT (circa 200 BCE) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 200 BCE). Having read the DSC version of the OT, he comes to conclusion that the Masoretic text (from which our OT is derived) has a textual error in it. The original text of the book of Samuel had the correct and inerrant height of Goliath as 2 cubits, but some scribal error led subsequent texts to record his height as 3 cubits. He thus states that while the Masoretic text is wrong, the original text of the Bible (which we do not have) was correct. This person has now just refuted the text of our OT manuscripts but sustained his belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture.
Now while both Christian OT professors reject the idea that Goliath was 3 cubits high and refute the Masoretic text of the Bible, only the second professor would be able to teach in an SBC seminary.
“The Bible records the famous strife between David and the giant Goliath, ending with the defeat of the latter. Goliath was "six cubits and a span" in height--over nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4). However, an earlier translation of this tale found in the Dead Sea Scrolls puts Goliath at just under two meters tall, rather than three meters as had been written in later versions. This greatly increases the validity of claims that Goliath may have been a real person, being gigantic in stature compared to the average height of a man in the early classical era of around 1.6 meters compared to around 1.75 today.”
Allow me to create a scenario.
A Christian OT professor reads the story of David and Goliath and comes to the conclusion that the story is too ridiculous to be true. The professor confesses that he does not believe that Goliath was 9 feet tall as the Bible records. He thus states that the Bible is wrong. This person has now just refuted a belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture.
Now a second Christian OT professor reads the story of David and Goliath and comes to the conclusion that the story is too ridiculous to be true. The professor decides to reevaluate the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (circa 800 CE), the Septuagint Greek text of the OT (circa 200 BCE) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 200 BCE). Having read the DSC version of the OT, he comes to conclusion that the Masoretic text (from which our OT is derived) has a textual error in it. The original text of the book of Samuel had the correct and inerrant height of Goliath as 2 cubits, but some scribal error led subsequent texts to record his height as 3 cubits. He thus states that while the Masoretic text is wrong, the original text of the Bible (which we do not have) was correct. This person has now just refuted the text of our OT manuscripts but sustained his belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture.
Now while both Christian OT professors reject the idea that Goliath was 3 cubits high and refute the Masoretic text of the Bible, only the second professor would be able to teach in an SBC seminary.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Inerrancy and Textual Variatians in the Scriptures
One aspect of the argument made against the Christian position of the Scriptural errancy is that is the Biblical Scriptures are found to be wrong on smaller details (such as dates, numbers, historical or scientific facts), then such a finding casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the longer details of the Scriptures as a whole. However, such an argument could be similarly applied to the known and universally agreed upon existence of textual variances in ALL the known Scriptural documents. Yet, the existence of these textual variances does not cast any such serious about the reliability of the Scriptural message (in either parts or whole) for evangelical, inerrantist scholars.
I bring this analogy up not because I desire to convince anyone that the Scripture are errant. I myself do not hold to that position; rather, I believe that the original documents of the Scriptures are inerrant. Of course, my own interpretation of the doctrine of inerrancy can be somewhat at variance with most of the conservatives with whom I associate and fellowship. Furthermore, because I believe I have a fairly accurate understanding of what many Christian believers mean when they refer to themselves as “errantists” or even understand the reasons why many Christian believers refuse to adopt the designation of “inerrancy”, I often defend various “errantists” for various and always particular reasons. Such a defense would thus categorize me as a “moderate” in the label-making department Paul Pressler (see A Hill on Which to Die, x.). However, since I neither care what Judge Pressler thinks about this matter nor even believe him to be any sort of learned authority about subject of “Scriptural inerrancy”, I am most dutifully self-described as a conservative, evangelical Christian who holds to the label of “inerrantist”.
Therefore, I bring up this analogy in order to spread ecumenical tolerance among the various Christian factions. I bring up this analogy in order to soften the minds and hearts of my fellow conservative, evangelical Christians by introducing to them a palatable reason why some Christians can honestly and faithfully hold to the position of “Scriptural errancy”.
Allow me to paraphrase Emil Brunner's illustration about the errancy of Scripture. It's like hearing Carouso singing on a phonograph. We hear a scratch here or there, a little white noise as they say today, but through it all is the unmistakable voice of the Master (see The Christian Doctrine of God, vol. 1: 107-113.)
I have often heard this illustration denounced and mocked by evangelical pastors and professors (mainly the latter). But could not such illustration also be made to bolster the existence of the textual variances in the Scriptural documents?
Allow me to make such thoughts more personal:
Recall the “King James Only” Christians and other Fundamentalists whose blind and unthinking approaches to their Faith practice excludes any hint that there could ever be any textual variances in the Scriptures: “GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW IT!”
Recall your own first belief about the nature of the Bible. Recall your first reaction when told by someone that the various documents of the Bible do not agree with each other 100% of the time. Did you believe it? Did you think that the people who believe this are liberals? Did you think that they could not possibly be Christians? How did you finally come to accept this view as true, if you have in fact done so?
Thus I think that we need to be quite tolerant of those who hold to “Scriptural errancy”. We need to give grace to those who have incorrect theology because 1) we all once had a theological viewpoint that was proven to be wrong and 2) we all currently have a theological viewpoint that will be proven to be wrong.
More importantly, we need to give grace to those who have incorrect theology because God gave US grace when we had and have incorrect theology.
See also:
Inerrancy and the Historical Veracity of Literary Scripture
Inerrant Art
Inerrancy and the SBC
The Heighth of Goliath
I bring this analogy up not because I desire to convince anyone that the Scripture are errant. I myself do not hold to that position; rather, I believe that the original documents of the Scriptures are inerrant. Of course, my own interpretation of the doctrine of inerrancy can be somewhat at variance with most of the conservatives with whom I associate and fellowship. Furthermore, because I believe I have a fairly accurate understanding of what many Christian believers mean when they refer to themselves as “errantists” or even understand the reasons why many Christian believers refuse to adopt the designation of “inerrancy”, I often defend various “errantists” for various and always particular reasons. Such a defense would thus categorize me as a “moderate” in the label-making department Paul Pressler (see A Hill on Which to Die, x.). However, since I neither care what Judge Pressler thinks about this matter nor even believe him to be any sort of learned authority about subject of “Scriptural inerrancy”, I am most dutifully self-described as a conservative, evangelical Christian who holds to the label of “inerrantist”.
Therefore, I bring up this analogy in order to spread ecumenical tolerance among the various Christian factions. I bring up this analogy in order to soften the minds and hearts of my fellow conservative, evangelical Christians by introducing to them a palatable reason why some Christians can honestly and faithfully hold to the position of “Scriptural errancy”.
Allow me to paraphrase Emil Brunner's illustration about the errancy of Scripture. It's like hearing Carouso singing on a phonograph. We hear a scratch here or there, a little white noise as they say today, but through it all is the unmistakable voice of the Master (see The Christian Doctrine of God, vol. 1: 107-113.)
I have often heard this illustration denounced and mocked by evangelical pastors and professors (mainly the latter). But could not such illustration also be made to bolster the existence of the textual variances in the Scriptural documents?
Allow me to make such thoughts more personal:
Recall the “King James Only” Christians and other Fundamentalists whose blind and unthinking approaches to their Faith practice excludes any hint that there could ever be any textual variances in the Scriptures: “GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW IT!”
Recall your own first belief about the nature of the Bible. Recall your first reaction when told by someone that the various documents of the Bible do not agree with each other 100% of the time. Did you believe it? Did you think that the people who believe this are liberals? Did you think that they could not possibly be Christians? How did you finally come to accept this view as true, if you have in fact done so?
Thus I think that we need to be quite tolerant of those who hold to “Scriptural errancy”. We need to give grace to those who have incorrect theology because 1) we all once had a theological viewpoint that was proven to be wrong and 2) we all currently have a theological viewpoint that will be proven to be wrong.
More importantly, we need to give grace to those who have incorrect theology because God gave US grace when we had and have incorrect theology.
See also:
Inerrancy and the Historical Veracity of Literary Scripture
Inerrant Art
Inerrancy and the SBC
The Heighth of Goliath
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Three Questions on the Inerrancy of Scripture
Here is a presumed evangelical scenario and three questions (the main question being at the end) for your thoughts.
First the milk:
PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS SCENARIO OR ITS THREE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING WITH DOUBTS ABOUT THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE!!!
This scenario and its questions are designed to make one ponder their faith and their relationship with God in Christ. Too many believers have such a struggle with uncertainty concerning the theology of the Faith that they are often fearful of either asking or even considering particular questions about our Faith. Many believers are so unsure of the intellectual side of the Faith that they treat theology like a glass bowl so delicate that the slightest question could forever smash it.
While I myself see the Faith and its theology as an indestructible castle built upon the foundation of God in Christ, individual believer’s faith is not so indestructible. Therefore, if you are struggling with doubts, disregard all of this but pray to God to help you with your doubts.
Now to the meat:
Amongst learned evangelicals it is common knowledge that only the original autographs of the New Testament are inerrant. Every single copy of the NT that we currently possess contains errors in the text which change the meaning of what we believe to be some aspect of the Scripture. Hypothetically, only the original documents written by the apostles are free from error. Let it be known that none of the known errors in the various ancient NT manuscripts alters any significant doctrine in any way. One of the points of significant doctrines being significant is that they are repeated by the author numerous times in a book, numerous times in the author’s various books and numerous times in various books by various authors.
But two points:
1) With specific reference to the autographs, nowhere does the Bible claim inerrancy for itself either as a whole or with an individual book. The idea of inerrancy is a logical corollary to the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures but it is a foreign idea in the Scriptures. In truth, it was a doctrine formulated by at Princeton Theological Seminary in the latter half of the 19th century.
2) The inerrancy of the autographs is a hypothesis that cannot be proven due to the fact that we do not have the original autographs and we never will. They have long since been destroyed by time and there is no way to recreate them.
The apostle and/or his secretary wrote down the original Scripture on an original scroll, parchment, etc. This original scroll is the original autograph and is the document or version which is deemed by all learned evangelicalism to be THE inerrant copy.
Now for the three questions:
1) If the apostle and/or his secretary made copies of this original inerrant document, were these copies made by the apostle and/or his secretary inerrant?
2) If we agree that the original autographs are inerrant, if we agree that the subsequent copies contain errors, then which copy of the original autographs contained the first error? The first copy, the second copy, the third or fourth?
3) Since we do agree that only the first editions of the autographs are inerrant and all the other editions contain errors, then there are only 27 inerrant editions of the NT documents and 100s of millions of errant editions. There could only be one complete inerrant version of the entire NT which was very early on completely lost to history and the Church while there are 100s of thousands of subsequent editions that we still have and have never been lost. Thus, we can practically presume that God has had no problem at all giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice documents that have errors in them. If this scenario is indeed the case, then why would God not mind giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice original autographs with original errors in them?
First the milk:
PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS SCENARIO OR ITS THREE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING WITH DOUBTS ABOUT THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE!!!
This scenario and its questions are designed to make one ponder their faith and their relationship with God in Christ. Too many believers have such a struggle with uncertainty concerning the theology of the Faith that they are often fearful of either asking or even considering particular questions about our Faith. Many believers are so unsure of the intellectual side of the Faith that they treat theology like a glass bowl so delicate that the slightest question could forever smash it.
While I myself see the Faith and its theology as an indestructible castle built upon the foundation of God in Christ, individual believer’s faith is not so indestructible. Therefore, if you are struggling with doubts, disregard all of this but pray to God to help you with your doubts.
Now to the meat:
Amongst learned evangelicals it is common knowledge that only the original autographs of the New Testament are inerrant. Every single copy of the NT that we currently possess contains errors in the text which change the meaning of what we believe to be some aspect of the Scripture. Hypothetically, only the original documents written by the apostles are free from error. Let it be known that none of the known errors in the various ancient NT manuscripts alters any significant doctrine in any way. One of the points of significant doctrines being significant is that they are repeated by the author numerous times in a book, numerous times in the author’s various books and numerous times in various books by various authors.
But two points:
1) With specific reference to the autographs, nowhere does the Bible claim inerrancy for itself either as a whole or with an individual book. The idea of inerrancy is a logical corollary to the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures but it is a foreign idea in the Scriptures. In truth, it was a doctrine formulated by at Princeton Theological Seminary in the latter half of the 19th century.
2) The inerrancy of the autographs is a hypothesis that cannot be proven due to the fact that we do not have the original autographs and we never will. They have long since been destroyed by time and there is no way to recreate them.
The apostle and/or his secretary wrote down the original Scripture on an original scroll, parchment, etc. This original scroll is the original autograph and is the document or version which is deemed by all learned evangelicalism to be THE inerrant copy.
Now for the three questions:
1) If the apostle and/or his secretary made copies of this original inerrant document, were these copies made by the apostle and/or his secretary inerrant?
2) If we agree that the original autographs are inerrant, if we agree that the subsequent copies contain errors, then which copy of the original autographs contained the first error? The first copy, the second copy, the third or fourth?
3) Since we do agree that only the first editions of the autographs are inerrant and all the other editions contain errors, then there are only 27 inerrant editions of the NT documents and 100s of millions of errant editions. There could only be one complete inerrant version of the entire NT which was very early on completely lost to history and the Church while there are 100s of thousands of subsequent editions that we still have and have never been lost. Thus, we can practically presume that God has had no problem at all giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice documents that have errors in them. If this scenario is indeed the case, then why would God not mind giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice original autographs with original errors in them?
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Height of Goliath
The Bible records the famous strife between David and the giant Goliath, ending with the defeat of the latter. Goliath was "six cubits and a span" in height--over nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4). However, an earlier translation of this tale found in the Dead Sea Scrolls puts Goliath at just under two meters tall, rather than three meters as had been written in later versions. This greatly increases the validity of claims that Goliath may have been a real person, being gigantic in stature compared to the average height of a man in the early classical era of around 1.6 meters compared to around 1.75 today.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Inerrancy and the Historical Veracity of Literary Scripture
I have a number of theological positions which differ from those held by my peers in the evangelical conservative community. And, frankly, I really do not care whether anyone agrees with me on these particular positions or not. Why? 1) These positions are true or untrue whether any other evangelical agrees with me or not. 2) These views really do not affect one’s faith and one can be a faithful believer whether or not they hold to these theological positions, so I feel no great urgency to convince everyone that my theological positions are correct. 3) Such a task is far too difficult for me to do so. Why? a) I’d be struggling against the “tyranny of first beliefs”, which means that people so strongly grasp onto the first beliefs they have that it is almost impossible to have them change such beliefs – particularly when such beliefs are matters of religious faith. b) I’d be struggling against old traditions which are held by the majority of the evangelical crowd. The overwhelming majority of individuals do not like to go against “the crowd” either due to peer pressure or because of anxiety and uncertainty of being wrong. c) Because the tendency of evangelical conservative Christianity is to equate the authenticity of faith with the accuracy of belief, people are afraid to consider other interpretations of the faith for fear that they would be heading towards apostasy (or at least be perceived as being heading towards apostasy). d) There is a particular level of theological inquiry which must be reached in order to begin to think about particular subjects and issues. We all know this is true: one must understand basic fundamentals of algebra before one proceeds to think about Calculus problems. One is not going to be able to consider Calculus problems if they are still struggling with algebra (like myself). I reached this conclusion back in May. I began to realize that the theological and biblical issues which I was pondering were generally beyond the paradigms of my peers. It wasn’t that they were somehow stupid or something. Far from it! My peers were very intelligent but they (or I) had gone towards other avenues of exploration of the Faith. Really, how can I discuss issues of the atonement with Calvinists? How can I discuss man made in the image of God with those who reject evolution? How can I discuss Luke’s creative process of Luke-Acts with those who refuse to accept documentary hypotheses? So I generally ceased to debate many issues with many of my friends and peers because the particular issues which I wished to debate required a particular set of presuppositions that the average evangelical conservative Christian just doesn’t have.
Nevertheless, I am extremely interested in the two great commandments and am extremely devoted to the notion of facilitating love and equality amongst believers. In fact, one of my ministerial goals is to create a greater level of theological tolerance in the Church with particular focus on the evangelical conservative community. While this goal might seem to be an overwhelming task it does benefit from the fact that it does not necessitate that a person must adopt the beliefs to which he is intolerant; it only needs to convince him that another believer can have such a belief. For example, I hold to the Q theory of the Synoptic problem. However, I know of some great scholars and professors who hold to another theory. In fact, my seminary’s NT dean rejects the Q theory. Imagine if I attempted to have him fired because he did not hold to the Q theory! Such nonsense! But similar such things do occur in SBC seminaries. So, in pursuit of this goal, I am going to attempt to make palatable to the evangelical conservative mindset a particular theological and biblical position which leads many accuse other believers of advocating errancy.
Amongst evangelical conservative Christians there is a general confusion of how any believer could believe that a particular story of the Bible is true but then reject the notion that this same particular story is not historical. Such confusion and ignorance usually leads to allegations of liberalism or not holding to inerrancy. Even when one does state their allegiance to conservative orthodoxy and inerrancy, such declarations and confessions of faith and theological principles go unheeded and are ignored in the face of positions that most evangelical conservative Christians believe to be untenable with conservative evangelical orthodoxy and inerrancy. Thus those believers who do not hold to the historical veracity of particular Biblical stories such as the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, the Flood, the Tower of Babel story, the stories of Jonah, Daniel, Esther and Ruth, and the apocalyptic events of the Revelation of John are pegged as liberals, one step away from apostasy.
Usually moderate believers who hold this view of a particular passage will try to explain this position by presenting the example of the parable whose meaning is true regardless of its historical validity. Unfortunately, this example often fails because too many evangelical conservative Christians believe all of the parables of the Bible are historically valid. Indeed, most evangelical conservative Christians believe that only a story that is an historical event can be true. Thus the parable of the Good Samaritan and that of the Prodigal Son have absolutely no veracity if they are not completely true or lack historicity. The truth and meaning of a story is said to be based upon concrete events instead of general principles which the story points (a very modernistic idea which has been heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinking).
So, instead of pointing to the example of the parable, allow me to point to two examples from Scripture which might help evangelical conservative Christians understand the thinking and faith of those believers who do indeed hold to the truth of a story without having to insist on its historicity. Two examples:
1) The Example of What “Jesus Said”
Throughout Scripture the authors of the Gospels will state (in their original manuscripts) that “Jesus said” and then quote Jesus’ words in the Greek.
Now, as we all know, Jesus did not actually make that statement … in the Greek. The statement made by Jesus was made in Aramaic, not in Greek. However, the Scriptures state that “Jesus said” something in Greek.
Yet, we read: “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”
Of course, we must then arrive at the conclusion that the inerrancy of Scripture takes into account that the Gospel writers are translating, paraphrasing, interpreting and rearranging the “historical” words of Jesus into the language, culture and situation in which the Gospel authors are writing. This would explain why the Synoptic Gospels frequently vary on the statements that Jesus made. This would also explain why Jesus in the Gospel of John speaks with the very words, syntax and thoughts of the author of the three epistles of John and not like the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels.
2) The Example of the Poetry of Job
The book of Job is a very interesting book and extremely complex. Its final form was written sometime after the Babylonian Exile, probably close to the Maccabean period. Whether this story has any historical veracity is quite unimportant to me. I really do not care any more than I care about the historical veracity of any of the other poetic and literary books. However, I am interested in how this story (if it is indeed historical) has been theologically arranged to become the Scripture that it is. This interest is based on how the Gospel writers (particularly Luke) arranged their historical material as Gospels (mostly I have been looking at the Maccabean books, which are also “theologically” arranged “histories”).
Thus, I do make the case that the book of Job is literature and has been theologically and literarily composed. It must be affirmed that Job and his 3 (or 4) friends did not say all that the book of Job attributes to them. Why? Simple: if Jonah has lost all that he has, is sitting naked with boils over his body, and his friends are wailing at his side, then how can we believe that they spontaneously began to have a theological discussion completely in poetic verse? Really? Poetry?
The Scriptures are literary constructs, composed by people inspired by the Holy Spirit to write various forms of literature about God and His relationship with Man.
What God desired to communicate through Scripture He did so using the medium of literature and the various aspects which accompany literature. God could have communicated through art but literature was the better choice. But literature differs from reality in the same way that film differs from books. A film communicates visually and musically in ways which books could never do. Conversely, film contains inherent limitations in which books excel. The best example is with the Lord of the Rings. Here is a book that was transferred to film. In order to do so, the filmmakers had to rearrange the literary material in order to make the book’s material acceptable to the film genre. In a similar way, the Scripture writers (through inspiration of the Holy Spirit) composed their books in ways which altered the reality of an event to best communicate its meaning. Thus, the historical, Aramaic statements of Jesus were translated into Greek. Thus, the events of Job are written out in long, theological and poetic monologues. Any other method would have been inappropriate to the intended purpose. Thus, millions and billions of years of creation are collapsed within the poetic framework of a few days.
Therefore, when a believer states that he doubts the historical veracity of a particular Scriptural story he is not necessarily stating that he doubts the meaning and truth of the story. He may simply think that the story has been literarily composed to meet the conditions necessary to effectively communicate the truth.
The doctrine of Inerrancy must be an emphasis on inerrancy of meaning and not inerrancy of form (it certainly should not be a matter of inerrancy of interpretation). To do otherwise is to dismiss a particular genre of literature as being beneath the literary dignity of Scripture (in terms of considering “inerrancy of interpretation”, that however one interprets Scripture to mean is what Scripture means, is reader-response hubris on the highest level). Such an effrontery is unbecoming evangelical Christianity.
I hope this little monograph has done some good in furthering the fellowship and love amongst believers in the Church. I hope I have given to the evangelical conservative community some legitimate and understandable reasons for why some other believers do hold and can hold to the truth of the Scriptural teachings while not having to accept the historical veracity of a Scriptural story. Again, you do not have to believe such a position is true but that it is okay for a believer to have it and that is it okay to fellowship and serve with such believers. And to let those other believers serve.
Nevertheless, I am extremely interested in the two great commandments and am extremely devoted to the notion of facilitating love and equality amongst believers. In fact, one of my ministerial goals is to create a greater level of theological tolerance in the Church with particular focus on the evangelical conservative community. While this goal might seem to be an overwhelming task it does benefit from the fact that it does not necessitate that a person must adopt the beliefs to which he is intolerant; it only needs to convince him that another believer can have such a belief. For example, I hold to the Q theory of the Synoptic problem. However, I know of some great scholars and professors who hold to another theory. In fact, my seminary’s NT dean rejects the Q theory. Imagine if I attempted to have him fired because he did not hold to the Q theory! Such nonsense! But similar such things do occur in SBC seminaries. So, in pursuit of this goal, I am going to attempt to make palatable to the evangelical conservative mindset a particular theological and biblical position which leads many accuse other believers of advocating errancy.
Amongst evangelical conservative Christians there is a general confusion of how any believer could believe that a particular story of the Bible is true but then reject the notion that this same particular story is not historical. Such confusion and ignorance usually leads to allegations of liberalism or not holding to inerrancy. Even when one does state their allegiance to conservative orthodoxy and inerrancy, such declarations and confessions of faith and theological principles go unheeded and are ignored in the face of positions that most evangelical conservative Christians believe to be untenable with conservative evangelical orthodoxy and inerrancy. Thus those believers who do not hold to the historical veracity of particular Biblical stories such as the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, the Flood, the Tower of Babel story, the stories of Jonah, Daniel, Esther and Ruth, and the apocalyptic events of the Revelation of John are pegged as liberals, one step away from apostasy.
Usually moderate believers who hold this view of a particular passage will try to explain this position by presenting the example of the parable whose meaning is true regardless of its historical validity. Unfortunately, this example often fails because too many evangelical conservative Christians believe all of the parables of the Bible are historically valid. Indeed, most evangelical conservative Christians believe that only a story that is an historical event can be true. Thus the parable of the Good Samaritan and that of the Prodigal Son have absolutely no veracity if they are not completely true or lack historicity. The truth and meaning of a story is said to be based upon concrete events instead of general principles which the story points (a very modernistic idea which has been heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinking).
So, instead of pointing to the example of the parable, allow me to point to two examples from Scripture which might help evangelical conservative Christians understand the thinking and faith of those believers who do indeed hold to the truth of a story without having to insist on its historicity. Two examples:
1) The Example of What “Jesus Said”
Throughout Scripture the authors of the Gospels will state (in their original manuscripts) that “Jesus said” and then quote Jesus’ words in the Greek.
Now, as we all know, Jesus did not actually make that statement … in the Greek. The statement made by Jesus was made in Aramaic, not in Greek. However, the Scriptures state that “Jesus said” something in Greek.
Yet, we read: “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”
Of course, we must then arrive at the conclusion that the inerrancy of Scripture takes into account that the Gospel writers are translating, paraphrasing, interpreting and rearranging the “historical” words of Jesus into the language, culture and situation in which the Gospel authors are writing. This would explain why the Synoptic Gospels frequently vary on the statements that Jesus made. This would also explain why Jesus in the Gospel of John speaks with the very words, syntax and thoughts of the author of the three epistles of John and not like the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels.
2) The Example of the Poetry of Job
The book of Job is a very interesting book and extremely complex. Its final form was written sometime after the Babylonian Exile, probably close to the Maccabean period. Whether this story has any historical veracity is quite unimportant to me. I really do not care any more than I care about the historical veracity of any of the other poetic and literary books. However, I am interested in how this story (if it is indeed historical) has been theologically arranged to become the Scripture that it is. This interest is based on how the Gospel writers (particularly Luke) arranged their historical material as Gospels (mostly I have been looking at the Maccabean books, which are also “theologically” arranged “histories”).
Thus, I do make the case that the book of Job is literature and has been theologically and literarily composed. It must be affirmed that Job and his 3 (or 4) friends did not say all that the book of Job attributes to them. Why? Simple: if Jonah has lost all that he has, is sitting naked with boils over his body, and his friends are wailing at his side, then how can we believe that they spontaneously began to have a theological discussion completely in poetic verse? Really? Poetry?
The Scriptures are literary constructs, composed by people inspired by the Holy Spirit to write various forms of literature about God and His relationship with Man.
What God desired to communicate through Scripture He did so using the medium of literature and the various aspects which accompany literature. God could have communicated through art but literature was the better choice. But literature differs from reality in the same way that film differs from books. A film communicates visually and musically in ways which books could never do. Conversely, film contains inherent limitations in which books excel. The best example is with the Lord of the Rings. Here is a book that was transferred to film. In order to do so, the filmmakers had to rearrange the literary material in order to make the book’s material acceptable to the film genre. In a similar way, the Scripture writers (through inspiration of the Holy Spirit) composed their books in ways which altered the reality of an event to best communicate its meaning. Thus, the historical, Aramaic statements of Jesus were translated into Greek. Thus, the events of Job are written out in long, theological and poetic monologues. Any other method would have been inappropriate to the intended purpose. Thus, millions and billions of years of creation are collapsed within the poetic framework of a few days.
Therefore, when a believer states that he doubts the historical veracity of a particular Scriptural story he is not necessarily stating that he doubts the meaning and truth of the story. He may simply think that the story has been literarily composed to meet the conditions necessary to effectively communicate the truth.
The doctrine of Inerrancy must be an emphasis on inerrancy of meaning and not inerrancy of form (it certainly should not be a matter of inerrancy of interpretation). To do otherwise is to dismiss a particular genre of literature as being beneath the literary dignity of Scripture (in terms of considering “inerrancy of interpretation”, that however one interprets Scripture to mean is what Scripture means, is reader-response hubris on the highest level). Such an effrontery is unbecoming evangelical Christianity.
I hope this little monograph has done some good in furthering the fellowship and love amongst believers in the Church. I hope I have given to the evangelical conservative community some legitimate and understandable reasons for why some other believers do hold and can hold to the truth of the Scriptural teachings while not having to accept the historical veracity of a Scriptural story. Again, you do not have to believe such a position is true but that it is okay for a believer to have it and that is it okay to fellowship and serve with such believers. And to let those other believers serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)