Why Inerrancy Matters

A few years ago, I served on my denomination’s local ordination council, and was part of a particularly painful meeting. It was painful because I helped make a judgment that ended a person’s then-current career in ministry. He had what appeared to be a good track record in a ministry and was undergoing our theological examination to determine whether or not we would recommend he receive a ministry credential (in the EFCA, ordination and licensing are acknowledged by the giving of a credential for ministry from the denomination). After three hours of questioning, the council unanimously, but with great regret, had to conclude that we could not recommend the candidate.

What led to this unhappy (and thankfully, rare) conclusion? While the candidate clearly was willing to place himself under the authority of the denomination, he could not personally and without reservation affirm a number of points in our doctrinal statement. The most problematic, it seemed, was the first point: “We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life.”
Now, you might wonder where the disagreement might come. There were more than one, but the main one had to do with the phrase, “without error in the original writings.” This means that when the human authors wrote the various books of the Bible, the Holy Spirit was superintending and directing the process to the extent that what was written was a perfect record of what God wanted to communicate. The objections that were raised were,
1) We can’t define “error” easily, since in the Bible there are references to things that are not exactly correct. For example, when the Bible uses measures of approximation or figures of speech, those expressions are not technically correct. So, are those errors?
2) We don’t have the original manuscripts, so how can we affirm that they were inerrant, or even be sure of what they say?
3) The need for an inerrant scripture assumes that truth is propositional and objective (that means factual statements and existing independently of other factors). Jesus said “…I am the truth,” so truth is a person, not a proposition. The written word becomes the truth as it is indwelt by the Living Word (what this means is the Bible in a sense only comes alive when the presence of Jesus is powerfully present in it, and that presence is realized by the reader).

Before I go on, let me briefly answer these three objections.
1) This shows a faulty understanding of the use of language and of proper biblical interpretation. We interpret the Bible in light of the style and usage of the writer. If approximations and figures of speech are a part of normal, meaningful conversation, their presence in the Scriptures do not constitute error. Further, while some point to existing errors in our available manuscripts, this does not mean the error was present in the original. Wrestling with issues of the text or uncertainty of meanings doesn’t undermine inerrancy; it only shows our imperfect grasp of history and language.
2) To borrow an illustration from Dr. Roger Nicole: if there was a fire at the National Bureau of Standards in Washington, D.C., and the standard yard stick from which all yard sticks were measured were destroyed, would we have to say we have no idea how long a yard is? Of course not. We could take the millions of copies that exist and recreate with great accuracy the original. That is the same thing that goes on with Biblical textual criticism. We may not have the original texts, but we do have the evidence to tell us what they said with an accuracy that allows us to have full confidence in the Scriptures.
3) If truth is not “propositional” and “objective,” then the objection raised against the concept would have no meaning, for you must have propositions to make statements! We would confess that the Holy Spirit must open the eyes of men and women so that they will believe and understand the truth of Scripture, but that is a work within the person, not within the written Word. The Bible is true whether or not it is believed or received as true in a “powerful” way.

Does all of this really matter? Well, if you are asking if a person who does not believe what I have said above can be a Christian, the answer is “yes, he can,” just as many true believers can have faulty theology on any number of issues. The problem comes when we start talking about the authority of the Word of God and the character of the God who has revealed Himself.
The authority problem comes if the Scriptures contain error. Some try to admit error, but limit its scope. They will affirm “The Scriptures are without error in all matters of faith and practice.” This means that “spiritual truth” is without error, but history and science (most notably the creation account), and issues where culture has changed (roles of men and women, family relationships, governmental authority, and other areas) can be mistaken. If, as is maintained by many, Genesis 1-11 is simply the best “creation myth” among many creation myths out there, its authority when it comes to the sanctity of life (“the image of God”), the fall of all mankind into sin, capital punishment for murder, etc., is significantly diminished. If Paul was simply wrong in saying that women should not teach or exercise authority over men (I Timothy 2: 14) due to a cultural bias he possessed, then what else was he wrong about? Should elders not need to meet the qualifications of I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 because those were culturally derived? Should church discipline be set aside as too much of a carry over from Paul’s pharasaical judgmentalism? Once the horse is out of the barn, where can you draw a firm line and say, “there can be no errors past this point?”

The character of God issue has to do with the objections that come when it is argued that fallen man could not produce a perfect revelation. That is agreed by everyone. The real question is, can a perfect God who is omnipotent give a perfect revelation in such a way that imperfect tools (in this case, men), could not mar its original perfection? If He can, then the question is simply, do you believe He could do it but chose to include error? This would make God the author of error, which would violate His character. If He cannot provide a perfect revelation, then He is not truly omnipotent, and cannot overcome our weakness and imperfection. That is extremely bad news.

Thus the question of inerrancy is not ultimately only a question about the reliability of Scripture, but a question about the nature and character of God. That makes it crucial to our faith, and worth taking a stand. It may lead to unpleasant circumstances, but the alternative would be immeasurably worse.

The Sorrows of Fathers and Sons :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

This article by John Piper was so powerful, especially for dads, that I've posted the link everywhere I comment.
The Sorrows of Fathers and Sons :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Posted using ShareThis

Revenge of the 80s Toys

Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | More Video Clips

Coming Back to "Reality"

I just returned yesterday from leading a group tour to Israel. It was an amazing experience, and even though this was my seventh time, I never cease to learn and to experience wonder while there. One thing we all commented on was the chance to take it in, to study our Bibles along the way, and to talk about so much without the intrusions of pop culture or the news.

Then we flew home.

On our flight, we had our choice of a few hundred movies, TV shows, video games, or a moving map of our plane's route on our personal screens.

At the Atlanta airport, we watched a tearful governor confess that he may have run on family values, but he didn't live them. Surprise--a national profile, plus stupid (not to mention immoral) behavior, will indeed destroy your career aspirations, at least if you are trying to appeal to those who believe in morality. If not, don't worry (think Bill Clinton)unless you break the law (think Eliot Spitzer).

Getting home, I checked my email and my home page news was in mourning over the death of Farrah Fawcett. Her ubiquitous poster and once universal hairstyle notwithstanding, she was not one of our great actresses, she was a celebrity.

Then last night, Michael Jackson's death shocked us all--especially those who, like me, remember his trifecta of hits that dominated pop music--Billie Jean, Thriller, and Beat It, all from the Thriller album of 1982. They were the soundtrack of the early 80s, and that doesn't seem so long ago to me. The media is going into the same hagiographic mode it did when another musical king, Elvis Presley, died (I remember that, too). Both were stars whose time had passed and were trying to recapture their lost glory. In death, Presley became bigger than he was when he died. Jackson will probably do the same.

But as I think about this today, I wonder if life was better during those days when we were in Israel thinking about the flow of God's plan through history, instead of being inundated with commentary about people and events at a level that far exceed their importance. I don't want to get caught up in all the "drama" people seem intent on creating about these things, or acting as if I am overly connected to them (look at all the Twitter and Facebook postings of people who never saw "Charlie's Angels" about Farrah, or those who go on and on about Michael Jackson but never paid much attention to his music, only his rather strange and malleable public persona over the years).

Politicians' failures should be a reminder (and an encouragement) that our trust is not in people, but in God who rules the affairs (no pun intended) of men. The death of celebrities reminds us that the applause of people does not make anyone immortal, and whatever is achieved in this life will be measured by an eternal standard. And when someone whose life has been so much larger than life passes away, we should remember that he, she, and all of us will stand before the righteous judge, and either be vindicated by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, or condemned by our own unrighteousness.

Let current events be reminders, or signposts, pointing us to the paths of biblical truth.

"Finally brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things (Phil. 4:8)."

Article on "The Science of Sex"

A good brother forwarded this article to me about new research on the physiological impact of sexual activity on the brain, and how that impact, when added into the lives of teens and others engaging in "casual sex," will have devastating emotional and physical consequences. It is very thought-provoking.

While our God's commands are enough to let us know his will, once again we see that what he commands is always for our good, as well as for his glory.


Posted using ShareThis

Piper, Wright, and Justification

The HUGE debate among evangelicals over justification continues. N.T. Wright, a British Anglican bishop and evangelical scholar, is the leading popular proponent of what has been called the "New Perspective" on Paul. Among other points, this view redefines justification as the ground whereby we claim our place among God's people. Present justification is by faith in Jesus and in the Holy Spirit's power to transform us and produce a life of good works. Future justification before God at the end of the age is based on our good works, not on faith alone. Wright uses Romans 2 to establish this--instead of being an argument against works righteousness, Wright says "the doers of the law will be justified" is a true statement of what will happen in the end.

John Piper has been the most popular (and gracious) opponent of this view, arguing for the historic Reformational idea that justification was, is, and will be the act of God declaring the sinner righteous by faith in the finished work of God in Jesus Christ. He says Wright is wrong, but not heretical. His book, The Future of Justification is his summary critique.

Wright has answered with Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. I am going to be reading this soon, after skimming its contents already, and having some strong questions arise in my mind about Wright's view.

Part of my concern stems from a summary critique of the content in Wright's book, found in two parts here and here. If these summary statements are true, I'm in for a bumpy ride while reading Wright.

I'll keep you posted (pun intended).

Advance 2009 Media and Photos

This link takes you to all the recordings of the main sessions of Advance 2009, the conference I attended last week. It was a fantastic conference, and these sessions are well worth watching.

Posted using ShareThis