Advertisements

inerrancy

This tag is associated with 21 posts

Book Review: “Reformation Commentary on Scripture: New Testament XIII- Hebrews, James” edited by Ronald K. Rittgers

The Reformation Commentary on Scripture series focuses on sharing insights from Reformation theologians on the Bible. Here, we’ll take a look at the Hebrews, James volume of this extensive series.

I was particularly excited to read and review this volume of the series, because Hebrews and James were especially controversial in the Reformation period. The editor of this volume, Ronald K. Rittgers, does an excellent job of both showing that controversy over these books while also bringing forward some unified themes of the Reformers in regards to them. As a Lutheran, I found the various quotes and notes from Luther and other early Lutherans (particularly Veit Dietrich) to be of great interest. Luther infamously called James an epistle of straw, and here we have his quote in its context. It seems clear that the notions of inerrancy of modern evangelicalism cannot easily be read back onto many of these Reformers. When you have one explicitly stating that James is “worthy of censure in some places” (Veit Dietrich), it is hard to say that the Reformers unanimously would have affirmed modern notions of biblical inerrancy. Reading what these reformers actually said about specific Christian doctrines may serve as a corrective to some clearly false statements.

Of course, reading these Reformers also means we get insight into the controversies of their time, and we see, for example, John Calvin hitting back at those “who do not think [James is] entitled to authority” because he sees “no just cause for rejecting it” (quoted p. 202). Other major controversies dealt with Christology, human and divine responsibility for evil, and works righteousness. These issues are presented with multiple Reformation perspectives given, making the volume an essential resource for those wishing to look more deeply into some major modern controversies as well. Other areas are less controversial, such as the teaching of the eternally begotten Son–an orthodox position unfortunately rejected by some today.

Both the general introduction and the Editor’s introduction to this volume were informative and well worth reading on their own. They each provided much-needed background for understanding some of the controversies, as well as the names, involved in the text.

Volume XIII of the New Testament series of Reformation Commentary on Scripture is a simply excellent resources for those interested in reading and understanding Scripture. Reformation thinkers share much wisdom and insight. The conflicts that happened then, in some ways, still impact us today. By reading these voices from the past we can begin to understand our present more fully. I highly recommend this volume.

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of the book for review by the publisher. I was not required to give any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Advertisements

Really Recommended Posts 2/26/16- Jesus the blasphemer?; inerrancy, and more!

postI have pulled together posts from across the web for your pleasure, dear readers. This week, the topics include Jesus being accused of blasphemy, inerrancy, Christian feminism, Proverbs, and the history of feminism.

Why is Jesus Accused of Blasphemy in Mark 14?– Jesus is accused of blasphemy in Mark 14, but why? Does this point to claims of deity by Christ at a very early point?

Bad Reasoning: The word inerrancy does not appear in the Bible, so therefore the Bible is errant?– A point-by-point refutation of the kind of reasoning strangely used by many: that word isn’t in the Bible, so it must not be true/biblical/etc.

6 Signs You Might Be a Christian Feminist: A Response to Courtney Reissig– A recent article on a complementarian site had a bit of guilt by association in regards to Christian feminists. Here is a response to that article highlighting what Christian feminists are working towards.

Herstory– Early feminism was pro-life, and here is a resource to help you explore the history of feminism and the pro-life origins of feminism.

Proverbs– Here’s a wonderful site that has an ongoing series of posts on each book of the Bible. This one is on Proverbs, and I think it does an excellent job bringing some quick order to what can seem like a strange book of the Bible.

 

Bonhoeffer’s Troubling Theology? – A response to an article on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theological perspectives

dietrich_bonhoeffer

Recently, Richard Weikart wrote an article entitled “The Troubling Truth About Bonhoeffer’s Theology.” Not surprisingly, this article called attention to some aspects of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology which would be considered, well, troubling to evangelicals.

The article has much to commend it: it shows that we ought not to make any theologian into an idol or endorse everything anyone writes. Indeed, the conclusion of the article has little to question in it: “What then should we make of Bonhoeffer? While recognizing his many admirable traits—compassion, courage, commitment, and integrity—we should be wary of many elements of his theology.” I think this kind of critical perspective is something evangelicals–and Christians generally–ought to take to heart. We should always test theologians by what Scripture teaches us.

All of that said, there are some aspects I wanted to respond to in the article, particularly to give some more context for Bonhoeffer as well as his Lutheran theology. I’m sure Weikart is more studied on Bonhoeffer than I am, and I don’t claim to be an expert on Bonhoeffer’s thought. What I do know, however, is a good amount about Lutheran theology, and what I have read of and about Bonhoeffer. And all of that, I think, is enough to allow me to offer some areas of criticism regarding the article.

The Bible and Apologetics

There is no question that Bonhoeffer’s view of the Bible was heavily influenced by Karl Barth. Weikart is correct to note that this means that, for Bonhoeffer, Scripture is not inerrant. Indeed, he believes the Bible scientifically silly at points (see his Creation and Fall, for example). Scripture was, for both Barth and Bonhoeffer, important more for conveying truths about Christ than it is for being verbally inspired. Scripture conveys the revelation of Christ, rather than itself being revelation, according to both. This is, indeed, a weakness in their theology.

Later, Weikart critiques Bonhoeffer for his view of apologetics: “[Bonhoeffer] thought that the historical accuracy of Scripture was irrelevant. Barth (and Bonhoeffer) considered apologetics misguided, because it transgressed the boundaries separating the empirical and religious realms.”

I’m not sure about the first part of this claim. If, by “historical accuracy,” Weikart means the individual details of how events happened, or specific views of creationism and the like, then the statement is true. But the brush seems to be a bit too broad here; given Bonhoeffer’s view of the importance of Christ, the cross, and the Resurrection, to broadly say that none of these were seen as historical or were in fact irrelevant is to speak too strongly. Did Bonhoeffer think things like the length of creation days, the exact words spoken by the serpent at the Fall, and the like were historically irrelevant? Yes, pretty much. But that doesn’t mean he thought there was nothing of historical value therein, nor does it mean he rejected the usefulness of Scripture. This is a common error evangelicals make regarding the views of Christians who do not affirm inerrancy. Admittedly, it’s one I have made at times. Just because someone doesn’t affirm a form of verbal inspiration does not entail they think everything in the Bible is false or questionable.

Regarding the second part of the claim, it is easy to assume someone like Barth or Bonhoeffer completely rejected apologetics, and indeed each makes statements to that effect; but what they mean by apologetics largely means a kind of apologetics that puts humanity in judgment of God. Barth and Bonhoeffer would not completely reject any form of defense of the faith, but they would reject those that rely on natural theology and the like. Bowman and Boa’s book, Faith Has Its Reasons categorizes Barth as a “fideist” apologist. Delving into those issues would take too long, but it is safe to say that Bonhoeffer would not have been completely against any form of apologetics whatsoever. His own apologetic would have been personal and existential, and apologists ought not to dismiss this aspect of a holistic view of Christianity.

“Conversion Experience”?

Weikart writes, “Though he experienced some kind of conversion around 1931, he hardly ever mentioned it. Later he expressed distaste for Christians talking or writing about their conversions.” Later, he makes his aversion to Bonhoeffer’s Lutheranism plain: “Aside from his faulty view of Scripture, Bonhoeffer’s doctrine of salvation was also problematic. As a Lutheran he embraced baptismal regeneration.”

The multiple mentions about Bonhoeffer’s “conversion” reveal more about the author of the article than about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was, like myself, a Lutheran and ought to be evaluated as such. Unless Weikart wants to dismiss all Lutherans as unsaved heretics–or at least as affirming “troubling” theology–he cannot simply dismiss Bonhoeffer’s view because he didn’t talk about his “conversion experience.”

The fact that Weikart continues to emphasize this makes me wonder just how inclusive his definition of “evangelical” is supposed to be. Lutherans do not have an emphasis on finding some specific event, date, or time that signify we converted to Christianity. Because of the emphasis in Lutheran theology on predestination and baptism, such language seems to us to imply a kind of work of conversion being done by the individual rather than by God. Indeed, for many Lutherans, if pressed to pick a moment of conversion, that would be whatever time they were baptized as an infant. This is not the place to delve into the debate over baptism, infant baptism, and the like. Instead, I’m giving context to Bonhoeffer’s theology and experience. Martin Luther himself affirmed vehemently that infants can have faith, and however absurd this might seem to many non-Lutherans, the reason is because faith is the act of the Holy Spirit–it is pure grace, not tied to some specific synergistic act or affirmation by a human. To critique Bonhoeffer because he wasn’t speaking to the expectations of whatever brand of evangelicalism Weikart subscribes to is to decontextualize his theology and, indeed, to effectively dismiss Lutheran confessions of faith.

Weikart most likely does disagree with much of the Lutheran Confessions, but this does not mean it is acceptable to critique someone like Bonhoeffer as though he is some kind of mainstream evangelical instead of being a Lutheran.

“Religionless Christianity”

Weikart quotes the somewhat infamous passage Bonhoeffer wrote of his resistance to “everything ‘religious.'” Such words tend to rile those who adhere to a narrative of a “culture war” between Christianity and… everything else. But, like Kierkegaard, who gets lumped in by Weikart along with other apparently “troubling” theologians, Bonhoeffer’s comments on religion must be read contextually. Eric Metaxas writes about this very same quote in his lengthy biography (and sometimes controversial) on Bonhoeffer, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy:

The most tortured interpretations [of Bonhoeffer] have fixed on his reference to “religionless Christianity”… [Bonhoeffer] saw a situation so bleak… that he was rethinking some basic things and wondered whether modern man had moved beyond religion. What Bonhoeffer meant by “religion” was not true Christianity, but the ersatz and abbreviated Christianity that he spent his life working against. This “religious” Christianity had failed Germany and the West during this great time of crisis…. and he wondered whether it wasn’t finally time for the lordship of Jesus Christ to move past Sunday mornings and churches and into the whole world. (466-467, cited below)

The crisis, of course, was Germany in World War II–the same Nazi Germany which executed Bonhoeffer shortly before the end of the war. Weikart’s warnings about Bonhoeffer’s comments on “religion,” it seems, fall into the same trap that many fall into when discussing Kierkegaard–failing to take the historical context and particular usage of the term seriously. Though some have objected to Metaxas’ portrayal of Bonhoeffer, the historical context provided here can hardly be questioned, because it is exactly what Bonhoeffer was rejecting against.

Evangelical Lutheran Hero?

Did Bonhoeffer have some aspects of his theology that evangelicals will find troubling? Absolutely, and Weikart does a good job highlighting some of these. But the point I’m trying to make is that none of this means that Bonhoeffer needs to be rejected or thrown out as an evangelical (and/or Lutheran) hero. Indeed, for the Lutheran in particular, Bonhoeffer’s theology shows us how true it is that we are all but sinner-saints. Though chosen by God and saved by grace alone, that does not mean we will be perfect now, and it means that we may have ideas that will be mistaken throughout our lives.

Many of the greatest theologians of all time have aspects of their theology that evangelicals will find troubling. Obvious examples would include Calvin (who would be troubling to Arminians) and Arminius (whose theology is troubling to Calvinists). But, alas, no human is perfect, and even greats like Augustine, Aquinas, Mother Theresa, and the like will not withstand scrutiny to determine whether they were perfect or affirmed a perfect theology.

Conclusion

Go ahead, enjoy Bonhoeffer’s works, note how he was a hero, and talk about his legacy. But read his works as you would any others: with a critical eye. As far as this article is concerned, as a Lutheran I found it somewhat troubling myself. Does Weikart genuinely mean to imply that all Lutherans must be excluded from the fold of evangelicalism? I’m not sure, but at least some of his criticism leveled at Bonhoeffer would just as easily be applied to Lutheran theology, generally speaking. And that, as I said above, seems to reveal more about the author than about Bonhoeffer.

Sources

Richard Weikart, The Troubling Truth about Bonhoeffer’s Theology (http://www.equip.org/article/troubling-truth-bonhoeffers-theology/) accessed 1/24/16.

Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyrd, Prophet, Spy (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010).

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Problems with the “Slippery Slope” argument for Inerrancy

question-week2I believe the Bible is true in all that it teaches, and that this is what is meant by inerrancy. The Bible teaches no error. There is much debate over the meaning of inerrancy, and I’m not going to enter into that debate now (though I have written on it, if you’d like to see my opinion). What is important is that I want to start by saying that I affirm inerrancy, but I think one common argument in favor of the doctrine is mistaken.

The Slippery Slope Argument for Inerrancy

The argument I’m referring to is what I shall dub the “Slippery Slope” argument. Basically, it asserts that if someone doubts that one part of the Bible is true, doubt about the rest of the Bible unerringly follows [see what I did there?]. One example of this can be found in a recent webcomic from Adam Ford. We might write out the argument in syllogistic form as something like:

1. If one part of the Bible is in thought to be an error, other parts are thrown into doubt
2. Person A believes the Bible has an error.
3. Therefore, person A has reason to believe other parts are thrown into doubt.

The syllogism as I have written it is surely not the only way to put this argument. I am providing it largely as an illustration of how the argument might be stated. The core of the argument, however, is that if one thinks part of the Bible is an error, the rest of it is made at least possibly dubious.

Analyzing the Argument

There are several difficulties that immediately come up, ranging from concrete to obscure. On the obscure end, we might question what is meant by “an error” and whether that error is said to be theological, scientific, medical, or something else. We could then debate whether an alleged scientific error in the Bible is grounds for stating that there is “an error” in the Bible to begin with, by debating different views Christians hold about the Bible’s relationship with science (or medicine, or whatever). I’m not going to delve into obscurities here, however interesting they may be (and, in my opinion, they are very interesting).

Instead, I want to focus on some major difficulties with the argument. For one, it assumes that the interlocutor, person A, views the entirety of the Bible as on the same evidential plain. That is, for the argument to hold any weight, person A would have to believe that the Bible is linked together so intricately that a belief that Genesis 34:17 [I arbitrarily chose this verse] is an error (however defined) would entail that John 3:16 is possibly an error as well. Clearly, for the argument to be sound, Premise 1 must be correct, and it seems to be obviously false.

The reason I say this is because the possible errancy of John 3:16 does not follow from belief that there is an error in Genesis 34:17. Suppose you are reading a history textbook and you see that it states the date of General Lee’s surrender at Appomattox to be April 9, 1864. You, being a proud history buff, know that the date was actually April 9, 1865. However, the year is only off by one. You may proceed more carefully through the rest of the book, but you would not have any reason to think that the book was mistaken when it said that General Patton was a United States general in World War II.

The argument therefore assumes a unity of the text such that the entire Bible stands or falls together. Now, that might be a perfectly correct position to hold–and I do hold to the unity of Scripture myself–but that is not an obligatory or necessary view. That is, someone might deny that the Bible is a unified text and therefore need not ascribe to the view that if one part is in error, another must be.

But this is not the only difficulty with the argument. Another problem is that it assumes person A has no more reason to believe the portions of the Bible they believe are true than they do for the portions they believe might be errors. Yet this is mistaken, and demonstrably so. Person A may believe there is overwhelming evidence for the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, such that they affirm that without question, while also thinking that the evidence against Israel having been in Egypt is quite weighty as well. Thus, they believe the Bible is perhaps mistaken on the status of Israel in relation to Egypt in Exodus, but they also affirm that it is clearly correct on Jesus’ resurrection. But the slippery slope argument presumes that they cannot hold these beliefs together without at least significant tension. But why? Again, the reason appears to be because the slippery slope argument relies on the assumption that the evidence for one part of the Bible must be exactly on par with the evidence for another. However, that in itself is clearly wrong.

 

Conclusion

Again, I affirm the doctrine of inerrancy. I just think we should not rely on this as one of our arguments. I have used the slippery slope argument myself in the past, but I believe the above analysis shows I was mistaken to do so. I think that others should avoid the argument as well so that we can present the best possible arguments for the truth of the Bible without error.

I suspect many will take issue with the analysis above. I’m not saying that I believe any portion of the Bible is an error. Nor am I denying the unity of Scripture. What I am saying is that it is not logically fallacious to deny that unity. I’m saying that I believe it is logically consistent to believe that the Bible may have an error while still affirming, for example, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is that something I would recommend? No, but neither is it something I would say is necessarily contradictory. Those who do want to take issue with my analysis must demonstrate how it is mistaken, and thus provide reason to think that the assumptions the slippery slope argument is based upon are sound.

Again, a final note is that I have taken the place of the interlocutor in several instances in this post. My point is simply that someone who did deny these things could come up with effective counters to the slippery-slope argument for inerrancy. Therefore, it seems to me that the argument is ineffective at best and faulty or fallacious at worst. It relies on presupposing that the opponent operates in the same sphere of presuppositions as the one offering the argument, but they need not do so.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

On the “Fuzzification” of Inerrancy– I argue that we have qualified the term “inerrancy” unnecessarily and to the extent that it has become difficult to pin down its actual meaning. I advocate a return to a simple definition of the term.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Really Recommended Posts 10/9/15- Inerrancy, Immigration, apologetics, and more!

postI’m pleased to offer this go-round of the Really Recommended Posts to you, dear readers. I think they are about as diverse as you can get. We have Stephen Colbert on his faith, illegal immigration and Christianity, apologetics, Jesus’ view of Scripture, and Planned Parenthood on the docket today. Check them out and let me know what you thought!

Watch Stephen Colbert, a Lifelong Catholic, on Hearing a Female Priest Celebrate the Eucharist– I don’t put a lot of stock in celebrity comments about faith or politics or really anything. After all, they don’t automatically become authorities simply because they are famous. However, Colbert’s faith is quite sincere, and this whole interview is worth watching. Here’s a clip in which he talks about a female priest celebrating the Eucharist.

American Christianity and Illegal Immigration– Here’s a fairly lengthy look at the historic interaction with illegal immigration that American Christianity has had. It helps provide a historical perspective on some of the current debates regarding illegal immigration.

Apologetics Strategies: The Myth of a Bulletproof Argument– It is easy to think that, regarding Christian apologetics, we can come up with an argument that will convince everyone. Is that the case? Here’s a post on apologetic method that is well worth your time.

Jesus Viewed Scripture as Inerrant: A Reply to Kyle Roberts– A few weeks ago I featured an article arguing all Christians should view the Bible as inerrant. Here is a follow-up post in which Rob Bowman takes an extended look at Jesus’ view of Scripture.

3 Pinnochios to Planned Parenthood Supporters for Slippery Mammogram Language– The Washington Post calls out Planned Parenthood supporters for their claims about mammograms. Look, Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide any mammograms at all. Not a single one. It should not be used as a scare tactic against those arguing to defund the abortion provider.

 

Really Recommended Posts 9/4/15- Shark Attacks, Sexism, and Planned Parenthood editing? Oh my!

postI have to say I’m very excited about this Really Recommended Posts round-up. The diversity of the set speaks for itself. I hope you’ll enjoy reading the varied posts. The topics we have this week are sexism, Shark attacks (but there’s more to it!), biblical inerrancy, the Gospel of Jesus’ wife, and the Planned Parenthood videos. Let me know your thoughts, and be sure to let the authors know as well!

10 Ways Men Can Fight Sexism– Here is an excellent resource that recommends ways that men can be engaged in fighting sexism. Yep, the description is straightforward, but the advice is invaluable.

Thoughts on Shark Attacks– My wife, Beth, wrote this post about a recent discussion we had with some kids and adults about her arm. Here are some reflections on grace, Lutheranism, and more.

7 Problems With Christian Opposition to Inerrancy– Here is a post which outlines some difficulties with Christians denying the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. I’m not sure I’m completely sold on all of these (for example, the argument that Jesus held to biblical inerrancy seems possibly a little weak), but it remains a good discussion to read nonetheless. What are your thoughts?

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Patchwork Forgery in Coptic… and English– An in-depth look at portions of this alleged “gospel” and the ways in which it exhibits signs of being a forgery.

Planned Parenthood, Fusion GPS, and the Smokeless Gun– “To the surprise of no one, the group Planned Parenthood hired to exonerate them exonerated them.” Planned Parenthood hired a company to try to clear their name, and–shockingly–they allegedly did so. But did they really? Here is an analysis of the findings of the study. See also: Center for Medical Progress Refutes Planned Parenthood’s Claims About the Videos Point-by-Point– the director of the group who recorded the undercover videos directly addresses the concerns raised about them being edited (or not).

Sunday Quote!- Adam and Eve and Inerrancy

lwae-waltonEvery Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

Adam and Eve and Inerrancy

Is it possible to deny the historicity of Adam and Eve and affirm biblical inerrancy? I’ve explored the issue of whether the historical Adam is a “gospel issue” before and concluded that it depends what is meant by the term. I was reading through John Walton’s The Lost World of Adam and Eve and in his conclusion he had something to say about the issue of inerrancy and the historicity of the first couple. If someone wants to assert that denial of the historicity of Adam is denial of inerrancy, then they must:

…make the case that historical Adam is part of the authoritative message that the text provides… If someone were to contend that belief in a historical Adam was cultural… part of the framework of communication, then inerrancy would not apply… (201-202)

It is worth noting that Walton believes that Adam and Eve are indeed historical persons, though he believes they were archetypes rather than the only humans alive at the time or the first humans ever.

What do you think? Need we affirm a historical Adam in order to affirm inerrancy? Is there a burden of proof upon those who claim the two are necessarily linked? What is your view of the historical Adam?

Whatever your thoughts, The Lost World of Adam and Eve is a thought-provoking read worthy of your attention.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote– If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Is the historical Adam a Gospel Issue?– What happens to the Christian faith should it turn out to be the case that there is no historic Adam? Can one remain Christian and not believe in an historic Adam?

Source

John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2015).

SDG. 

On the “Fuzzification” of Inerrancy

fff-jwm[Theological a]djustment is achieved through “interpretation”–in theological parlance, hermeneutics… [I]f the loss of the term “inerrancy”… is fraught with sufficiently dire consequences, there will be the strongest temptation to retain these expressions while giving the Bible such “adjustive interpretation” that negatively critical approaches to it can be employed anyway. (Montgomery, 217, cited below)

The definition of inerrancy has been hotly disputed as of late. The infamous Geisler-Licona controversy, which continues to boil over at points, serves as a poignant example of this (see here for a Christianity Today article on the controversy; see also links below for a few discussions of the same). What is meant by inerrancy? Are we in a new era of Bible wars? These are the questions being asked right now.

I remember reading an essay from a book–Faith Founded on Fact–by noted Christian apologist John Warwick Montgomery entitled “The Fuzzification of Inerrancy.” The quote above comes from the essay, and it has gotten me thinking. Have lines been crossed? Where do we draw the lines anyway?

Montgomery defined “fuzzification” following James Boren. It is the “presentation of a matter in terms that permit adjustive interpretation” (217, cited below). Turning back to the quote above, the term speaks of the need to retain a specific idea essentially at all costs. Thus, when a challenge is raised to that idea, the idea is broadened or changed to incorporate the data raised by the challenge. Montgomery, originally writing in 1978, seems at times prophetic. He spoke of a time when one might see a contradiction, source theory, or even possibly an error in the Bible and simply define it as “a question of hermeneutics, not of inspiration at all!” (218); he worried about a time when “the ‘inerrancy’ with which one  is left is an inerrancy devoid of meaningful content”; and he warned of the dangers of “adjustive interpretation” (227).

I wonder, at times, whether his statements have come to fruition. When I survey various works from evangelicals on interpretation or hermeneutics I find a baffling array of ways we are to understand individual passages or how we are to interpret various passages. Turning to Church Fathers, I find a number of passages in which their readings would be unrecognizable today due to the heavy use of allegory in passages we take to be literal or explicitly historical in genre. Moreover, the question of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy looms large. As with any document, questions are raised about what exactly is meant in each clause or in what way individual denials or affirmations might be meant.

It’s enough to make one wonder whether it is time to go back to a baseline understanding. “I believe the Bible is true in whatever it teaches.”*

The question that will be immediately raised, of course, is “What does the Bible teach?” The overriding desire to restrict exactly what it is the Bible teaches and prevent so-called “liberal” scholarship from finding ground to stand on in evangelicalism has led to an incessant narrowing of the definition of inerrancy, such that clause after clause is piled one atop the other to the point that it is hard to operate within such limits. Moreover, it seems some of these definitions actually prevent development within theology and squelch the impulse to question received traditions in light of new evidence.

The danger that some may think is posed by whittling the definition of inerrancy down to something like “The Bible is true in all that it teaches” may perhaps have some of the concern negated by the fact that it gets the dialogue going. If people return to this question: if someone genuinely, with open heart and mind, asks me “What does the Bible teach?” then I think that’s a glorious thing. Moreover, one may wonder at the purpose of inerrancy: is it a way to declare that the Bible is without error (as it seems to be based on the word itself); or is it a way to define how we go about reading the Bible? After all, if it is simply a declaration that the Bible is without error, should not simply declaring it as such be sufficient?

Perhaps it’s time to de-“fuzzify” inerrancy and get back to the basics. We may ask “What is the thrust of the doctrine of inerrancy?” instead of “What rival theological views may I exclude with the definition of inerrancy?”

Perhaps the danger of “fuzzification” from dehistoricizing texts, critical scholarship, and the like has in fact led to a fuzzification of the definition of inerrancy by making it over-determine the limits within which one may operate. I’m not claiming to offer all the answers, nor should it be thought that I am rejecting inerrancy. Far from it.** What I am instead rejecting is a “fuzzification” of the doctrine: when did declaring the Bible to be God’s Word and Truth become so complex that volumes of books were necessary simply to define what that means?

Let me know what you think in the comments below.

*This definition has suggested itself to me from a number of sources, including Nick Peters of Deeper Waters.

**I’m sure some people will take any questioning of current discussion about inerrancy to be denying the doctrine. However, this post is clearly written in order to defend the doctrine. What does inerrancy mean? That’s the thrust of this post, not “Inerrancy is false.” I believe the Bible is true in all it teaches.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Review: “Faith Founded on Fact” by John Warwick Montgomery– I review Montgomery’s well-known book on apologetic methodology.

Inerrancy– Check out my other posts on this topic. (Scroll down for more posts.)

The Geisler/Licona Debate– Nick Peters has a number of posts on this controversy if you want to read up on the topic. This post summarizes the debate and offers a thoughtful critique, in my opinion.

The Geisler/Licona Controversy– A quick, easy read on the reasoning behind the controversy.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Really Recommended Posts 7/11/14- Inerrancy, Men, a young earth?, and more!

postI’m pretty excited about this latest round-up of posts which I have gathered for your reading pleasure. Let me know what you think in the comments. If you liked someone else’s article, be sure to drop a comment, because those keep we bloggers going! Thanks for reading.

The Bad Boys, The Secret, and Apologetics Teams in Churches– A post that combines NBA with apologetics? One which encourages specialization of apologetics-oriented sites? Sign me up! This is a fantastic post and well worth your time to read. Check it out.

“What Your Husband Isn’t Telling You”: Is this book telling the truth about men?-A review and critique of a book which alleges some pretty heinous things about men and women.

Was the crucifixion a matter of child abuse?– It has been alleged more than once that the crucifixion was a kind of divine child abuse. Was it? Check out this brief post showing that this allegation is a farce.

“Best Evidences for a Young Earth” – Andrew Snelling and the Salty Seas– Does the amount of salt in the oceans provide evidence for a young earth? Check out this analysis of Andrew Snelling’s–of Answers in Genesis–argument that it is.

A Response to James White on “Defining Inerrancy”– An interesting post showing that maybe we, as Christians, should desire a place at the table such that we can offer an internal critique of non-Christian thought. Check out this thought-provoking read!

Perspicuity and Inerrancy- a dialogue response

question-week2Recently, a fellow blogger responded to my post on arguments for young earth creationism. This blogger insinuated that I deny inerrancy because I do not hold to young earth creationism. I’ve run into this frequently and apart from the fact I frequently defend inerrancy (simply scroll down to read several posts to this end), I think that Christians should not falsely represent others. For the record, I affirm inerrancy. If you say I do not, you are giving false testimony against a neighbor.

Anyway, once more, this is the link for the post that I’m responding to. Here’s the post he responded to.

The issue this fellow blogger brought up is the issue of perspicuity. At some point I’ll try to dedicate a post specifically to perspicuity and inerrancy, but for now I want to focus on how it is used to try to say every single point in Scripture is just utterly clear. I often run into this in discussions over theological issues. One person claims perspicuity for their reading, and thus says that anyone who disagrees denies the clear meaning of the text. Of course, it is appropriate to point out such clear meaning and offer correction, but one has to argue for that clear meaning rather than simply accuse the other of denying inerrancyAlso, apart from the fact that perspicuity has historically changed in meaning due to controversies during the Reformation, there is also the simple fact that defining perspicuity as the clarity of Scripture in everything simply doesn’t work. We’ll see why I say this below.

I’d like to make public record of my response and get readers’ thoughts as well. Here’s what I commented on his blog, in its entirety. I address “you” to the author of the blog response:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I have a few thoughts, and I’ll try to be brief.

First, the doctrine of perspicuity changed during the Reformation period. As I [very] briefly point out in my post on sola scriptura in the Reformation (https://jwwartick.com/2012/10/15/who-interprets-sola/), this was because the Reformers realized there was genuine disagreement over certain passages of Scripture.

Second, there are some issues within Scripture which are genuinely unclear. If you want to deny that, I would suggest you basically have to ignore the text of Scripture. There are a number of issues: for example, underdeterminiation. One looks in vain to find the amount of detail we often wish we had on people that are listed in the genealogies, for example. More concrete examples would be the question of the meaning of certain words, lining up some apparent differences in the Gospels, etc. For example, would you say that Matthew 28:1-7 is unclear? Ah, but it says there is one angel there who speaks to the women. But then is Luke 24:1-8 unclear? But it says there are two angels!

I bring up this example not to say there is an actual contradiction (after all, it seems that Matthew just reports the one who talks), but rather to show the appeal to clear verses does not always solve the apparent difficulties. Unless you want to say that either Matthew or Luke are unclear, you have an apparent contradiction which is not solved by a “clearer” text. It is solved by thoughtful reflection and looking more deeply into the backgrounds, the way oral tradition was passed along, and the like. But your post suggests we can simply cast about for a “clearer” text to figure out the unclear. Tell me, which is unclear, Matthew or Luke?

Third, your view of perspicuity seems to mean that we only learn from being spoon fed easy truths, the exact opposite of the difference between milk and meat that Paul suggests. For example, you wrote:

“Probably the clearest example of the perspicuity of Scripture is found in Paul’s words to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 which says, ‘All Scripture (not just the Gospel message) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.’ How can a person profit from Scripture so as to be reproved by it, corrected by it, and instructed in righteousness by it, if it was so unclear he had difficulty understanding it?”

Have you never learned anything by being confronted with a difficult problem and striving to understand it? I suspect that you have. I suspect you’ve struggled with specific portions of the text and come out better for it when you came to reconcile the text through other observations, insights, and reflection. If you haven’t I certainly have, and I know many others who have as well.

Regarding this text, I’d also simply point out that the interpretation of it is quite forced. Is the intent of the text teaching us that all of Scripture is inspired and profitable, or is it teaching us we can just expect to understand everything?

Finally, I firmly affirm and defend inerrancy and any suggestion to the otherwise should be withdrawn. Difference of opinion over interpretation should not be taken as denying inerrancy. Rather than misrepresent your Christian brother, you should stand beside me in a defense of inerrancy. We differ on interpretation of certain texts. Unless you take your interpretation to be itself inerrant and the word of God, I ask you to stop slandering me by implying I deny the doctrine.

Advertisements

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,546 other followers

Archives

Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
Advertisements