Posts Tagged ‘Karl Barth’

Is There is a Difference between Infallibility and Inerrancy as Rogers and McKim Believe?

Posted: April 19, 2012 in Bible
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

This view of infallibility and inerrancy being the same is challenged today. Some would say that the Bible is infallible in areas of “Faith and Practice” or that the Bible is without error when it teaches us how to be saved and how to live the Christian life. The reason the Bible is infallible in these two areas, they say, is because this is the reason the Bible was written. But in areas of history and science the Bible is not inerrant. This is the view of Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim in The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible.

A Definition of Inerrancy

Wayne Grudem gives a very good definition of inerrancy (the doctrine that there were no errors in the original writning of Scripture): “The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” (Systematic Theology, page 90). Ryrie adds to this definition: “The Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as these do not contradict” (Basic Theology, page 82).

Importance of Inerrancy

The Domino Effect took place at Fuller Theological Seminary which was founded in 1947 by Charles Fuller when inerrancy was abandoned.

Their first doctrinal statement read:

“The books which form the canon of the Old and New Testaments as originally given are plenarily inspired and free from all error in the whole and in the part. These books constitute the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” I think you agree with me, that this is a Biblical statement.

Every faculty member was to sign without mental reservation or voluntarily leave. In 1962, one board member denied inerrancy and nothing was done. Later two faculty members denied inerrancy and nothing was done. The first dimino fell.

In 1972, Fuller adopted a new doctrinal statement:

“Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine disclosure. All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” One all important statement is omitted from the first statement: “free from all error in the whole and in the part.” Thus you have denial of inerrancy.

Five years later (1977) Fuller’s professor Paul King Jewett in his Man as Male and Female said Paul’s teaching about the subordination of woman to male leadership in Ephesians 5 is an error and in contradiction to Galatians 3:28. In other words, now at Fuller, according to Jewett’s view, the Scripture is infallible only in the area of faith or salvation.

Look at the downward spiral which took place at Fuller.

1. Fuller went from believing the infallibility of all Scripture (in their first doctrinal statement).

2. Fuller then move to believing the infallibility of the Scripture only in faith and practice but no longer in inerrancy of Scripture at this point (seen in second doctrinal statement).

3. Finally, Fuller move to believing the infallibility of Scripture only in the area of salvation (Jewett’s view) or the Scripture is only inerrant when speaks of salvation.

Neo-Orthodoxy made it’s influence on Fuller Seminary through Daniel Fuller who went to Bazil, Switzerland, to study under Neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), who did not believe in inerrancy. Barth wrote about his view of errancy in his Church Dogmatics: “The Bible witnesses to a revelation from God …..The prophets and apostles are actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word” (pages 507, 528, 529).

“The illustration that the Neo-Orthodox usually gives is that the Bible is like a minister preaching the Gospel. Although there may be many mistakes in his sermon, he is still witnessing to the truth, and this is sufficient to secure salvation for men” (Steward Custer, Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy, p. 75.).

In 1978, the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy met at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago consisting of 300 noted scholars, to combat this heresy and produced The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. Article XI reads, “We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.”

What is the Scriptural teaching on inerrancy?

1. God can not lie (Heb. 6:18)

2. God breathed out (inspired) the Bible (2nd Tim. 3:16)

3. Therefore the Bible is true. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him” (Prov. 30:5).

What is our response to this reasoning that does not see the infallibility and inerrancy as the same?

The Bible declares that “all Scripture is inspired.” The term “Scripture” includes the O.T. (Lk. 24:44), the gospels (Lk. 4:21) and the N.T. epistles (2nd Pet. 3:16). The New Testament authors trusted the smallest historical details from the Old Testament.

Hebrew 11:3 makes a scientific statement that must be accepted by faith. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

On page 94 of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is a long list of O.T. historical events referred to in the New Testament as true.

As far as the writers of Scripture were concerned, infallibility and inerrancy are equal.

Book Review of John Stott’s Between Two Worlds (Chapter Four: Preaching as Bridge-Building)

Posted: August 9, 2011 in Book Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

This is an excellent chapter on the application part of preaching or the contextualizing of the sermon. Preaching must bridge the communication gulf of 2000 years.

In chapter four, Stott discusses the need for preaching to build bridges between the revealed Word in the ancient world and the contemporary world of our audience. He first deals with the theory side.

The problem is we usually stand in only one of the two worlds. The Biblical conservative sometimes finds himself on the Biblical side of the cultural chasm when he does not properly apply the eternal truths of the first century ancient world to his generation. We leave that up to the Holy Spirit. The theological liberal is often on the modern side so concerned with relevancy that he sacrifices Biblical doctrine.

To not neglect either side of the great divide, we must read from both worlds. Someone asked Karl Barth, “What do you do to prepare your Sunday sermon?” Barth answered, “I take the Bible in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other.” Al Mohler’s interview with the late Stott gives some practical ways to exegete contemporary culture.

Stott also points out that we should also preach on the level of our people. Spurgeon once commented, ‘Christ said, ‘Feed my sheep…Feed my lambs.’ Some preachers, however, put the food so high that neither lambs nor sheep can reach it. They seem to have read the text, ‘Feed my giraffes.’

Stott next turned from theory to practice with two examples. The first example is personal and the second is ethical.

First, in bridge building, we can answer the personal questions all generations having been poising: “What is the purpose of our life? Has life any significance?. . . .” We believe that Jesus Christ has the answers to these world-view questions. Therefore we must preach Christ as John Wesley did when he preached his favorite text: “Jesus Christ is our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30).

The next example in bridge building is ethics. Because saving faith produces works, ethics is the application part of our preaching. Stott gives a series of five kinds of ethics when preached will build a bridge between the two worlds. This concentric circle could be the application grid we think through when preparing sermons.

The first is individual Christian ethics. This is best described by Paul’s letter to Titus who was to teach sound doctrine and also the ethical conduct that adorned doctrine or displayed its beauty. Such as the elderly women teaching the younger women, and the older men mentoring the younger.

The next ethic is church ethics or the responsibility to fulfill the “one another” commands in the new community of the church.

There is also domestic ethics. Domestic ethics is addressed by both Paul (Ephesians 5:21-69) and Peter (1 Peter 2:18—3:3).

The fourth area of ethics is social ethics for the community at large. For example, we have an obligation to preach sexual ethics such as sexual intercourse limited to married, heterosexual couples. Social ethics also includes speaking out against covetousness and the need to help the poor.

Finally there is the political ethics. Old Testament prophets like Amos addressed social injustices. While opposed to the social gospel of works for salvation, Stott exhorted preachers to preach “biblical principles which relate to the problems of contemporary society, in such a way as to help everybody to develop a Christian judgment about them, and to inspire and encourage the opinion-formers and policy-makers in the congregation.”

Stott answers how preachers handle controversial topics when they bridge the gap and apply Scripture to personal, domestic, church, social and political ethics. Preachers should equip their people with what Stott calls the Christian mind or the Christian frame of reference or what we more commonly now call the Christian World view. We must teach a Christian framework of truth that includes creation, fall, redemption and consummation.

For example, the issue of abortion is a concrete contextualization of personal ethics as well as domestic, church, social and political.  Al Mohler exposes the culture of death in America going after Crisis Pregnancy Centers. When a pregnant teenager goes to a Crisis Pregnancy Center and the ultrasound shows her live baby in her womb chances of an abortion greatly diminish. Baltimore, New York, and San Francesco are trying to regulate Crisis Pregnancy Centers out of business. How should we address this onslaught against life? What is the Biblical World view that would equip our people to answer this life and death topic?

At creation God created man in His image and therefore we should not attack God by destroying pre-born babies made in His image. The Bible also teaches the sanctity of human life (Genesis 9:6; Psalm 139:13-16). God told Jeremiah that He had a will for him before he was formed or created by God in his mother’s womb (Jeremiah 1:5). This Biblical frame of truth teaches us to oppose the murder of all human life and even pre-born human life.

Mohler made this comment in his interview with the late Stott that summarizes this chapter: “Mohler: That requires a double exegesis — an exegesis of the text and also an exegesis of life.”

In our next post we look at Stott’s stress on the importance of the preacher in his study which enables us exegete both worlds.

The Importance of Doctrinal Statements, Part Three

Posted: April 19, 2010 in Doctrinal Statements, Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

international-council-on-biblical-inerrancy-77850651Fuller Theological Seminary illustrates the effect of a Christian institution or local church abandoning a solid doctrinal statement. The Domino Effect took place at Fuller Theological Seminary which was founded in 1947 by Charles Fuller.

Fuller’s first doctrinal statement read:

“The books which form the canon of the Old and New Testaments as originally given are plenarily inspired and free from all error in the whole and in the part. These books constitute the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” I think you will agree with me, this is a solid Biblical statement.

Every faculty member was to sign without mental reservation or voluntarily leave. In 1962, one board member denied inerrancy and nothing was done. Later two faculty members denied inerrancy and nothing was done.

In 1972, Fuller adopted a new doctrinal statement:

“Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine disclosure. All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” One all important statement is omitted from the first statement: “free from all error in the whole and in the part.” Thus you have the denial of inerrancy.

Five years later (1977) Fuller’s professor Paul King Jewett in his Man as Male and Female said Paul’s teaching about the subordination of woman to male leadership in Ephesians 5 is an error and in contradiction to Galatians 3:28. In other words, now at Fuller, according to Jewett’s view, the Scripture is infallible only in the area of faith or salvation.

Look at the downward spiral which took place at Fuller.

1. Fuller went from believing the infallibility and the inerrancy of all Scripture (in their first doctrinal statement).

2. Fuller then moved to believing the infallibility of the Scripture only in faith and practice and no longer in inerrancy (seen in second doctrinal statement).

3. Finally, Fuller moved to believing the infallibility of Scripture only in the area of salvation (Jewett’s view). Or the Scripture is only inerrant when it speaks of salvation.

Neo-Orthodoxy made its influence on Fuller through Daniel Fuller who went to Bazil, Switzerland, to study under Neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), who did not believe in inerrancy. Barth wrote about his view of errancy in his Church Dogmatics: “The Bible witnesses to a revelation from God …..The prophets and apostles are actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word” (Church Dogmatics pp. 507, 528, 529).

“The illustration that the Neo-Orthodox usually gives is that the Bible is like a minister preaching the Gospel. Although there may be many mistakes in his sermon, he is still witnessing to the truth, and this is sufficient to secure salvation for men” (Steward Custer, Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy, p. 75.).

In 1978, the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy met at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago consisting of 300 noted scholars, including Wayne Grudem, Homer Kent, Jr., John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, John Whitcomb, etc. to combat this heresy and produced The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. Article XI reads, “We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.”

This view of infallibility and inerrancy being the same is challenged today. Some would say that the Bible is infallible in areas of “Faith and Practice” or that the Bible is without error when it teaches us how to be saved and how to live the Christian life. The reason the Bible is infallible in these two areas, they say, is because this is the reason the Bible was written. But in areas of history and science the Bible is not inerrant. This is the view of Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim in The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible.

What is our response to this reasoning that does not see the infallibility and inerrancy as equally important? 

The Bible declares that “all Scripture is inspired.” The term “Scripture” includes the O.T. (Lk. 24:44), the gospels (Lk. 4:21) and the N.T. epistles (2nd Pet. 3:16). The New Testament authors trusted the smallest historical details from the Old Testament.

Hebrew 11:3 makes a scientific statement that must be accepted by faith. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

These conservative theologians at the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy not only saw the error that resulted from a doctrinal statement abandoned, they not only cursed the darkness, they lit a light and forged another solid doctrinal statement that now must be practiced and defended.

Justin Holcomb for the most part gives an accurate summary of the ICBI or CBSI. I disagree, however, with his caricature of fundamentalism as the following quotes shows. While all liberals downplay the role supernatural role in the writing of Scripture, not all fundamentalists downplay the human role in dual authorship as Holcomb accuses.

While not to be given creedal status, the CBSI is an important statement that Christians ought to affirm. One of the reasons is, the CBSI navigates between liberalism and fundamentalism. Liberalism so analyzes and assesses the historical background and literary features of a text (the human features) that the text’s authenticity and factuality is negated in the process. Fundamentalism so emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s activity in the writing of the Scriptures (the divine features) that the human authorship of the text is severely minimized or denied.

You can read about important doctrinal statements in Part 1, Part 2, Part 4.

An Expose of Emerging Church Preaching, Part 3

Posted: November 18, 2009 in Emerging Church, Homiletics/Preaching
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

Postmodernism’s Impact on the Style of EC Preaching

Postmodernism’s low view of Scripture is a driving force in Doug Pagitt’s Preaching Re-Imagined: The Role of the Sermon in Communities of Faith. Speaching is what Pagitt derisively calls historic preaching by the pastor. Pagitt admits candidly: “Preaching doesn’t work—at least not in the ways we hope… preaching, as we know it, is a tragically broken endeavor… great preaching isn’t sufficient.”[1]

The first style change for Pagitt is a shift from one pastor teaching God’s Word with authorial intent to members sharing multiple interpretations. Speaching, according to Pagitt, is modernistic because it is characterized by absolute truth and authorial intent i.e., one interpretation. The effect of deconstruction is heard in Pagitt’s alternative view to preaching which he calls progressional dialogue: “Progressional dialogue (hereafter PD), on the other hand, involves the intentional interplay of multiple viewpoints that leads to unexpected and unforeseen ideas.”[2]

Pagitt’s alternative, PD, is interactive with the community of God. The alternative is a direct result of Pagitt’s inferior view of Scripture. PD is interaction with the community who possesses just as much of the Word as does the Bible we hold in our hand. [3] Pagitt writes that “progressional dialogue creates a relationship in which the Bible becomes a living member of the community…. When this happens, the Bible becomes part of our conversation, not a dead book from which I extract truth.”[4]  So if Pagitt preaches in the traditional way, the Bible is a dead book, but if the community dialogues then the Bible is a living Book. The writer of Hebrews would adamantly disagree (Heb 4:12).

The result of these communal sermons is multiple views of Scripture. The Bible is only one member of the community contributing to the dialogue in Pagitt’s view.  One man proclaiming God’s Word is arrogant and too authoritative.[5] Driscoll, who disagrees with Pagitt, offers this refutation: “This makes about as much sense as shooting your doctor and gathering with the other patients in his lobby to speculate about what is wrong with one another and randomly write out prescriptions for one another in the name of equality.”[6]  This is directly opposed to Paul, who commanded as one of the required 16 qualifications to be a pastor in 1st Timothy 3:1-7 was to be “apt to teach.” See Michael Duduit’s interview with Pagitt.

The second style change for Pagitt is a move from the text being central in the sermon to experiences and stories being central. Not only are multiple views of Scripture proclaimed in a service by multiple members but by Pagitt’s admission another element of these dialogues is not the text as with historic preaching but the experiences of the community. “So our sermons are not lessons that precisely define belief so much as they are stories that welcome our hopes and ideas and participation.”[7] The center piece of preaching, according to the imperative in 2 Tim 4:2, is “the Word” not the experiences of people: “Preach the Word…reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” Paul follows hard the command with the reason for this burning concentration of preaching on God’s Word: “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” That prophesy is being fulfilled today in some groups of the EC.

Why does Pagitt reject the style of historic preaching? In part because of his postmodern deconstruction of the history of preaching. Another anti-preaching argument by Pagitt is that speaching or historic preaching is just another adverse result of the EC’s boogeyman, the Enlightenment. Pagitt, the revisionist, rewrites the history of preaching: “In reality speaching is quite new, a creation of Enlightenment Christianity in which faith formation was understood as something best handled by the ‘expert’ (aka the pastor).”[8] John Calvin is just one glaring refutation to Pagitt’s undocumented arguments. Calvin was committed to verse by verse expository preaching through books of the Bible as documented by Steven J. Lawson in The Expository Genius of John Calvin, Orlando, Reformation Trust, 2007, 16 (See review in Unashamed Workmen).

Because the church and state were not separate, and Calvin had elders who were also city council members, who could overrule the decisions of the church, Calvin faced unique battles as a pastor.

The Libertines, boasted in sinful licentiousness. Sexual immorality was permissible, they claimed, arguing that the ‘communion of the saint’ meant that their bodies should be joined to the wives of others. The Libertines openly practiced adultery and yet desired to come to the Lord’s Table.

But Calvin would have none of it. In an epic encounter, Philibert Berthelier, a prominent Libertine, was excommunicated because of his known sexual promiscuity. Consequently, he was forbidden from partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Through the underhanded influence of the Libertines, the City Council overrode the church’s decision, and Berthelier and his associates came to church to take the Lord’s Supper with swords drawn, ready to fight. With bold audacity, Calvin descended from the pulpit, stood in front of the Communion table, and said, ‘These hands you may crush, these arms you may lop off, my life you may take, my blood is yours, you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profaned and dishonor the table of my God.’ Berthelier and the Libertines withdrew, no match for such unflinching convictions.

Eventually, Calvin was banished from Geneva for three years (1538-1541) because of his refusal to allow the spiritually unqualified to partake of the Lord’s Table. Finally, the struggling city of Geneva invited Calvin to return. On September 13, 1541, Calvin returned after his three year banishment. He entered his old pulpit and began, “I will begin my exposition by reading our text for the morning…” and he announced the verses following the exact place he had left off three years before. Calvin started preaching on the next verse.

Preaching God’s Word is a priority of the church (2 Tim. 4:1-6). Preaching God’s Word is the ministry of God-called men whom God equips to be “apt to teach.” This is not a qualification of every member of the church, not even the deacons. But “apt to teach” which is synonymous with preaching the Word in the context of 1 Tim 3:1-7 is one of the primary responsibilities of the pastor.

[1] Doug Pagitt. Preaching Re-Imagined (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 18-19.

[2] Ibid., 52.

[3] Pagitt once again reminds us of Barth’s view, but this time in regard to preaching. Barth quotes approvingly of Luther’s view that when the preacher preaches, he is speaking God’s Word. In other words, the preacher is not simply preaching God’s infallible Word, with which we would agree, but that what the preacher says is God’s infallible Word: “Therefore, we do well to call the pastor’s and preacher’s word which he preacheth, God’s Word. For the office is not the pastor’s or preacher’s, but God’s; and the Word which he preacheth is likewise not the pastor’s or preacher’s, but God’s” Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. 107. Again what is true with the individual, this time the preacher, in Neo-orthodoxy, is true with the community in the Emerging church.

[4] Pagitt, 218.

[5] Ibid., 123.

[6] Mark Driscoll, The Radical Reformation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 173.

[7] Doug Pagitt. Church Re- Imagined: The Spiritual Formation of People in Communities of Fatih. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005) 166.

[8] Pagitt, Preaching Re-Imaged. 28,60,113.

An Expose of Emerging Church Preaching, Part 2

Posted: November 17, 2009 in Emerging Church, Homiletics/Preaching
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Postmodernism’s Impact on the Content of EC Preaching

Andrew Perriman, an Emerging church theologian, in his website Open Source Theology posted this blog entitled “Jesus, God and narrative theology.”  In this post, Perriman, explains away the deity of Christ with narrative theology. In narrative theology, it is not the context of the Scriptural passage that determines its meaning, as much as the context of the community. Clearly the Biblical context of John 20:28 “My Lord and my God” exclaimed by Thomas to Jesus, is the deity of Christ. However, in the narrative context of Perriman’s community the deity of Christ is deconstructed.[1] Perriman rejects universal truths or static beliefs for dynamic insights that the Spirit of God can communicate to the current community of believers.  

The late Stanley Grenz, a theologian and philosopher in the Emerging church, would agree and actually laid a new theological basis for this emergent thinking. Grenz revealed his low view of Scripture found in his Revisioning Evangelical Theology by stating that he believes traditional evangelicalism has made mistakes that need to be revisioned. One of the mistakes, in Grenz’s view, is traditional evangelicalism’s emphasis on the Bible as a divine book rather than a human book. Translated means, importance has been placed on inspiration over illumination. According to Grenz, “We can more readily see the Bible—the instrumentality of the Spirit—as the book of the community.”[2] With this communal subjectivism, truth is found in each community, and inspiration is mixed with believers’ illumination: “The confession of the inspiration of the Bible is closely intertwined with the experience of illumination.”[3] Norman Geisler[4] observes that this view sounds like neo-orthodoxy’s view of inspiration which states that the Bible becomes the Word of God when you have experienced this event.[5] The difference between Neo-othodoxy’s view of Scripture and that of the Emerging Church is found in their emphases: Neo-orthodoxy emphasizes the individual experiencing God’s Word and the Emerging church stresses the community experiencing the Word.

 As a result of this new neo-orthodox view, many doctrines are rejected. Here are the doctrines Driscoll says the left wing of the EC, what he calls Emergent Liberals, are questioning and in most cases abandoning. As will be obviously observed, the EC has an aversion for doctrine. I have added to Driscoll’s list some documentation of this aversion.

1. Scripture

2. Jesus Christ

3. Gender

4. Sin

5. Salvation

6. The Cross[6]

7. Hell:[7] Will sinners experience a conscious eternal torment?[8]

The secular and evangelical postmodern focus on community has not only directly impaired the content of preaching by lowering people’s view of Scripture and questioning core doctrines, but the style of preaching. In my next post, I will discuss postmodernism’s impact on the style of EC preaching.

[1] “So, for example, Thomas’ words ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20:28) are read not as an expression of a universal truth but as a particular confession of personal faith within a particular narrative context. This was how Thomas responded – or how John understood Thomas to have responded – to Jesus’ invitation to believe. So I think I’m arguing for two rather different things – first, to exercise a measure of theological restraint in reading the texts, allowing them to set contextual limits to the language that we use about Jesus; but secondly, to recognize that within the covenant community, within the body of Christ, the Spirit of God prompts (continues to prompt) a wide range of personal and corporate insights into the nature of the overlap of identity and purpose between Jesus and God.” Andrew Perriman. “Jesus, God, and narrative theology.” Open Source Theology (September 20, 2005). http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/728. Accessed December 18, 2008.

http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/728. Accesssed January 1, 2009.

[2] Stanley J. Grenz. Revisioning Evangelical Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 115.

[3] Ibid., 118.

[4] Norman L. Geisler and Thomas A. Howe. A Postmodern View of Scripture. A Christian Apologetics Journal 7/1 (Spring, 2008), 70.

[5] “The Bible is God’s Word so far as God lets it be His Word, so far as God speaks through it .…The statement, ‘The Bible is God’s Word,’ is a confession of faith, a statement made by the faith that hears God Himself speak in the human word of the Bible….this act of God upon man has become an event, therefore not to the fact that man has reached out to the Bible, but to the fact that the Bible has reached out to man. The Bible therefore becomes God’s Word in this event….the Bible must from time to time become His Word to us” Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. Vol. I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), 123-124. Karl Barth is important to the EC. One chapter in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope is given over to promoting Barth: “Digging Up the Past: Karl Barth (The Reformed Giant) as Friend to the Emerging Church.” (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

[6] “And did the conservative Protestant emphasis on the death of Jesus necessarily marginalize Jesus’ life—his wise teachings and his kind deeds, which had captured my childhood imagination? Over time I began to feel as though, from my perspective, the gospel became simply an individualistic theory, and abstraction with personal but not global import. It became about the solution to a cosmic legal/business/political problem, real and serious, but a bit dry, a bit removed from real life. In my heart grew a deep, subtle, unspoken sense that something was missing, which gradually opened my heart to search for other ways of seeing Jesus” McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 48-49.

[7] “I should add that this dissatisfaction with the conservative Protestant Jesus intensified just last Christmas when one of my children was home for the holidays from college. I asked him how he was doing spiritually. ‘I’m struggling, Dad,’ he said. ‘Tell me about that,’ I said. He replied, ‘Well, Dad, if Christianity is true, then nearly everyone I love is going to be tortured in the fires of hell forever. And if it’s not true, then life has no meaning.’ He was silent for a moment and then added, ‘I just wish there were a better option.’ My heart was broken, I asked, ‘Is that the understanding of Christianity you got from me?’ He replied, ‘No, but that’s the way most Christians think. They just kind of bottom-line everything to heaven or hell, and that makes life feel kind of cheap.’ My son’s insight doesn’t apply to the best expressions of conservative Protestants, but it does, I fear, apply too often to the most popular ones. He put into blunt and powerful terms exactly what I felt vaguely and inarticulately when I was his age”[7] Brian McLaren. A Generous Orthodoxy, 49.

[8] Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emerging Church.” Criswell Theological Review. 3/2 (Spring 2006) 91.

Are There Errors in the Bible?

Posted: September 19, 2009 in Bible
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

A Definition of Inerrancy

Wayne Grudem gives a very good definition of inerrancy (the doctrine that there were no errors in the original writing of Scripture): “The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” (Systematic Theology, page 90). Ryrie adds to this definition: “The Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as these do not contradict” (Basic Theology, page 82).

Importance of Inerrancy

The Domino Effect took place at Fuller Theological Seminary which was founded in 1947 by Charles Fuller when inerrancy was abandoned.

Their first doctrinal statement read:

“The books which form the canon of the Old and New Testaments as originally given are plenarily inspired and free from all error in the whole and in the part. These books constitute the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” I think you agree with me, that this is a Biblical statement.

Every faculty member was to sign without mental reservation or voluntarily leave. In 1962, one board member denied inerrancy and nothing was done. Later two faculty members denied inerrancy and nothing was done. The first dimino fell.

In 1972, Fuller adopted a new doctrinal statement:

“Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine disclosure. All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” One all important statement is omitted from the first statement: “free from all error in the whole and in the part.” Thus you have denial of inerrancy.

Five years later (1977) Fuller’s professor Paul King Jewett in his Man as Male and Female said Paul’s teaching about the subordination of woman to male leadership in Ephesians 5 is an error and in contradiction to Galatians 3:28. In other words, now at Fuller, according to Jewett’s view, the Scripture is infallible only in the area of faith or salvation.

Look at the downward spiral which took place at Fuller.

1. Fuller went from believing the infallibility of all Scripture (in their first doctrinal statement).

2. Fuller then move to believing the infallibility of the Scripture only in faith and practice (seen in second doctrinal statement).

3. Finally, Fuller move to believing the infallibility of Scripture only in the area of salvation (Jewett’s view). Or the Scripture is only inerrant when speaks of salvation.

Neo-Orthodoxy made its influence on Fuller Seminary through Daniel Fuller who went to Bazil, Switzerland, to study under Neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), who did not believe in inerrancy. Barth wrote about his view of errancy in his Church Dogmatics:“The Bible witnesses to a revelation from God …..The prophets and apostles are actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word” (pages 507, 528, 529).

“The illustration that the Neo-Orthodox usually gives is that the Bible is like a minister preaching the Gospel. Although there may be many mistakes in his sermon, he is still witnessing to the truth, and this is sufficient to secure salvation for men” (Steward Custer, Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy, p. 75.).

In 1978, the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy met at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago consisting of 300 noted scholars, to combat this heresy and produced The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. Article XI reads, “We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.”

What is the Scriptural teaching on inerrancy?

1. God can not lie (Heb. 6:18)

2. God breathed out (inspired) the Bible (2nd Tim. 3:16)

3. Therefore the Bible is true. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him” (Prov. 30:5).

This view of infallibility and inerrancy being the same is challenged today. Some would say that the Bible is infallible in areas of “Faith and Practice” or that the Bible is without error when it teaches us how to be saved and how to live the Christian life. The reason the Bible is infallible in these two areas, they say, is because this is the reason the Bible was written. But in areas of history and science the Bible is not inerrant. This is the view of Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim in The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible.

What is our response to this reasoning that does not see the infallibility and inerrancy as the same?

The Bible declares that “all Scripture is inspired.” The term “Scripture” includes the O.T. (Lk. 24:44), the gospels (Lk. 4:21) and the N.T. epistles (2nd Pet. 3:16). The New Testament authors trusted the smallest historical details from the Old Testament.

Hebrew 11:3 makes a scientific statement that must be accepted by faith. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

On page 94 of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is a long list of O.T. historical events referred to in the New Testament as true.

As far as the writers of Scripture were concerned, infallibility and inerrancy are equal.

Was the Bible Written by God or Man? Part 2

Posted: September 17, 2009 in Bible
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

A Biblical view of dual authorship will help answer Grenz’s and Barth’s low view of the Bible. In the first post on inspiration, the origin of inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16 was discussed. In this post, I will examine the method of inspiration found in 2Peter 1:20, 21. In verses 20 and 21a Peter states that the origin of Scripture is not of man. This statement compliments Paul’s declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 said that all Scripture originated with God and Peter in 2 Peter 1:20, 21 said that all Scripture did not originate with man.

Dual authorship means that God used “holy men” to record His inspired Word. So there is a divine and human instrumentality involved in the writing of Scripture. The Bible is both a human and divine book.

Human Instrumentality: God’s Word is a Human Book

The method of receiving Scripture is seen in the words “holy men of God spoke.” “Spoke” means “wrote” according to 2 Peter 3:15, 16. Human Instrumentality involved “holy men.” What does “holy” mean? Was David the murderer and adulterer holy? It means these authors were set apart through God’s providential preparation to be authors of Scripture.

“But how can the Bible be the Word of God and at the same time, for example, the words of Paul? “God formed the personality of the writer” (John MacArthur, Why I Trust the Bible, p. 29). For example, who were the most educated authors of Scripture? Moses, Paul, and Luke. It is no accident that these men also wrote more Scripture than any other authors. In the New Testament, Paul wrote more books, but Luke wrote more material. God educationally and providently set these men apart to write God’s Word.

Divine Instrumentality: God’s Word is a Divine Book

Divine Instrumentality is seen in the words “as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

“God suspended temporarily man’s inherent weakness to make mistakes.” God used divinely chosen men using their individuality, knowledge, literary style, and background. “They were authors, not secretaries” (MacArthur, p.30).

God used a variety of methods to get His inspired Word recorded. This is what Hebrews 1:1 means when it says that God spoke “in many and various ways.” Sometimes God dictated Scriptures as in Revelation 2:1: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write” and what was dictated was written.  Others wrote as eye witnesses as in much of the four Gospels. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would aid the memory of the apostles when they later wrote Scripture (John 14:26). These portions of God’s Word were not dictated. In the case of Luke, God used his research that Luke alludes to in Luke 1:1-3.

I like the way Wayne Grudem summarizes dual authorship:

In cases where the ordinary human personality and writing style of the author were prominently involved, as seems the case with the major part of scripture, all that we are able to say is that God’s providential oversight and direction of the life of each author was such that their personalities, their backgrounds and training, their abilities to evaluate events in the world around them, their access to historical data, their judgment with regard to the accuracy of information, and their individual circumstances when they wrote, were all exactly what God wanted them to be, so that when they actually came to the point of putting pen to paper, the words were fully their own words but also fully the words that God wanted them to write, words that God would claim as his own” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 81).

Grudem also properly connects the inspiration of Scripture with the authority of  Scripture: “All the words in Scripture are God’s words. Consequently, to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve  or disobey God himself” (page 81). John MacArthur does a good job in the YouTube clip using the authority of Scripture against others who deny the authority of God’s Word such as Rabbi Harold Kushner, Deepak Chopra, and Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Was the Bible Written by God or Man? Part 1

Posted: September 17, 2009 in Bible
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

The late Stanley Grenz, a theologian and philosopher in the Emerging church, revealed his low view of Scripture in his Revisioning Evangelical Theology by stating that he believes traditional evangelicalism made two mistakes that need to be revisioned. The first mistake was in emphasizing the Bible as a book of doctrine instead of a book of the Spirit i.e., bibliology should be subsumed under pneumotology. The more subjective ministry of the Spirit should have priority over the objective doctrine of the Word, according to Grenz.

The second mistake, in Grenz’s view, is traditional evangelicalism’s emphasis on the Bible as a divine book rather than a human book. Translated means, importance has been placed on inspiration over illumination. According to Grenz, “The Bible is seen, then, not as a finished and static fact or collection of facts to be analyzed by increasingly sophisticated methods, but as a potentiality of meaning which is actualized by succeeding generations in the light of their need.”  If Scriptures are not a finished fact but a potentiality of meaning, who will complete the Bible’s meaning and potentiality? He adds, “We can more readily see the Bible—the instrumentality of the Spirit—as the book of the community.” So according to Grenz, the Bible should not be considered a book of doctrine but a book of the Spirit and the community.

When we hold to the traditional evangelical view of the objective inspiration of Scripture 2000 years ago instead of the present illumination of believers by the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the current community, we, according to Grenz “exchange the dynamic of the ongoing movement of the Spirit speaking to the community of God’s people through the pages of the Bible for the book we hold in our hands.”  With this communal subjectivism, truth is found in each community, and inspiration is mixed with believers’ illumination: “The confession of the inspiration of the Bible is closely intertwined with the experience of illumination” Stanley J. Grenz. Revisioning Evangelical Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993, 114-120).

Norman Geisler observes that this view sounds like Karl Barth’s neo-orthodoxy’s view of inspiration which believes that the Bible becomes the Word of God when you have experienced this event:

“The Bible is God’s Word so far as God lets it be His Word, so far as God speaks through it .…The statement, ‘The Bible is God’s Word,’ is a confession of faith, a statement made by the faith that hears God Himself speak in the human word of the Bible….this act of God upon man has become an event, therefore not to the fact that man has reached out to the Bible, but to the fact that the Bible has reached out to man. The Bible therefore becomes God’s Word in this event….the Bible must from time to time become His Word to us” (Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. Vol. I  Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936, 123-124).

The difference between Neo-othodoxy’s view of Scripture and that of the Emerging Church is found only in their emphases: Neo-orthodoxy emphasizes the individual experiencing God’s Word and the Emerging church stresses the community experiencing the Word.

Geisler and Nix rightly evaluate these low views of Scripture: “While the Liberal contends that the Bible merely contains God’s word, and the Neoorthodox asserts that the Scripture becomes God’s word in an existential ‘moment of meaning,’ the orthodox, or Conservative, position is that the Bible is the Word of God. It holds the Bible to be God’s objective revelation whether or not man has a subjective illumination of it” (Norman Geisler and William Nix. A General Introducdtion to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978, 43). In Part 2, we will examine the human and divine instrumentality involved in writting God’s Word.

A Biblical view of dual authorship will help answer Grenz’s and Barth’s low view of the Bible. In the first post on inspiration, the origin of inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16 was discussed. In this post, I will examine the method of inspiration found in 2Peter 1:20, 21. In verses 20 and 21a Peter states that the origin of Scripture is not of man. This statement compliments Paul’s declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 said that all Scripture originated with God and Peter in 2 Peter 1:20, 21 said that all Scripture did not originate with man.

Dual authorship means that God used “holy men” to record His inspired Word. So there is a divine and human instrumentality involved in the writing of Scripture. The Bible is both a human and divine book.

Human Instrumentality: God’s Word is a Human Book

The method of receiving Scripture is seen in the words “holy men of God spoke.” “Spoke” means “wrote” according to 2 Peter 3:15, 16. Human Instrumentality involved “holy men.” What does “holy” mean? Was David the murderer and adulterer holy? It means these authors were set apart through God’s providential preparation to be authors of Scripture.

“But how can the Bible be the Word of God and at the same time, for example, the words of Paul? “God formed the personality of the writer” (John MacArthur, Why I Trust the Bible, p. 29). For example, who were the most educated authors of Scripture? Moses, Paul, and Luke. It is no accident that these men also wrote more Scripture than any other authors. In the New Testament, Paul wrote more books, but Luke wrote more material. God educationally and providently set these men apart to write God’s Word.

Divine Instrumentality: God’s Word is a Divine Book

Divine Instrumentality is seen in the words “as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

“God suspended temporarily man’s inherent weakness to make mistakes.” God used divinely chosen men using their individuality, knowledge, literary style, and background. “They were authors, not secretaries” (MacArthur, p.30).

God used a variety of methods to get His inspired Word recorded. This is what Hebrews 1:1 means when it says that God spoke “in many and various ways.” Sometimes God dictated Scriptures as in Revelation 2:1: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write” and what was dictated was written.  Others wrote as eye witnesses as in much of the four Gospels. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would aid the memory of the apostles when they later wrote Scripture (John 14:26). These portions of God’s Word were not dictated. In the case of Luke, God used his research that Luke alludes to in Luke 1:1-3.

I like the way Wayne Grudem summarizes dual authorship:

In cases where the ordinary human personality and writing style of the author were prominently involved, as seems the case with the major part of scripture, all that we are able to say is that God’s providential oversight and direction of the life of each author was such that their personalities, their backgrounds and training, their abilities to evaluate events in the world around them, their access to historical data, their judgment with regard to the accuracy of information, and their individual circumstances when they wrote, were all exactly what God wanted them to be, so that when they actually came to the point of putting pen to paper, the words were fully their own words but also fully the words that God wanted them to write, words that God would claim as his own” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 81).

Grudem also properly connects the inspiration of Scripture with the authority of  Scripture: “All the words in Scripture are God’s words. Consequently, to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve  or disobey God himself” (page 81). John MacArthur does a good job in the YouTube clip using the authority of Scripture against others who deny the authority of God’s Word such as Rabbi Harold Kushner, Deepak Chopra, and Mayor Gavin Newsom.