Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Inspiration/ Inerrancy


by 23 Comments

The Spirit’s role in reminding the disciples of the words of Jesus

A couple days ago I shared few articles with a Facebook group to which I belong. We were discussing textual criticism, the preservation and collection of ancient texts, and subsequent English translations, so I posted these two articles written by Daniel Wallace recently: “Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation” and “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text”. One of the subjects addressed by Wallace is “Red Letter Editions” of the New Testament. I said that I preferred that printers avoid the red font because I think it misleads people. The words of Jesus in the Gospels are the words of the Evangelist. The other article I decided to share was Helen K. Bond’s recent contribution to The Bible and Interpretation: “Ten Things I Learnt about Jesus by Writing a Book about him”. This one was relevant because she writes that she has become “…increasingly convinced that the search for authentic words of Jesus is a waste of time.” I think I agree to a large extent. We have Jesus’ words as interpreted and shared by the Evangelists. Our efforts to get behind the words of the Evangelists may provide us with some interesting theories concerning Jesus’ words in an Aramaic context, but even then I am cautious about such findings.

One person asked how this jives with the words of John 14:26: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” [1] The theological claim of this text is important to many Christians who hold a high view of Scripture to one degree or another. I thought my response there may be worth sharing here as well. I wrote the following in response:

We must rethink our understanding of how the Spirit reminded Jesus’ disciples of his words. Did the Spirit remind them of Jesus’ words verbatim or did the Spirit remind them of the gist of Jesus’ words? I would argue that Jesus’ message is preserved, while his exact words are not something about which we should worry.

In part, students of human memory are aware that we interpret everything we remember. If our memories were raw data alone we’d overload. Every thing we “remember” is important because we have categorized and interpreted it, framing it a certain way, giving it meaning (think about important events in your own life). This is why scholars differentiate between the ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox of Jesus. The “verba” being the “words” Jesus used, the “vox” being the “voice” or “message” of these words. If you compare the Synoptic Gospels you will see that some of the same events are described differently. If we seek the exact “verba” we’re in trouble. If we seek the “vox” we know that what is important is the gist of Jesus’ message.

Also, Jesus likely taught the same lessons and prayed the same prayers in a variety of different context in places all over Galilee and Judea. Each time he did this there was likely a slight twist, a contextualization if you will. Imagine a traveling evangelist saying the same thing exactly the same way in every pulpit. Unlikely, unless s/he is reading from a written document, verbatim, with no variance or exposition. Jesus didn’t read from a document, so we can presume he didn’t always say the same thing the same way twice. So when we see differences between the Synoptics, or the even great difference between the Synoptics and the Gospel of John, we do ourselves a great service by remembering that the Spirit gave us Jesus’ words as interpreted by the Evangelists who wrote the Gospels. There is nothing wrong with this. Jesus didn’t live in a world with recording equipment, but rather a world where he was making disciples, and part of making disciples is making sure that the disciples took ownership of his message, which is what the Gospels display.

For those who find John 14:26 to be an authoritative statement regarding the work of the Spirit in empowering the Evangelists to record the words of Jesus I don’t think we have to close our eyes to the differences between the Gospels, especially the Synoptics and the Gospel of John. Jesus’ words verbatim shouldn’t be our goal. Jesus’ message relayed and interpreted in what we need to seek when reading the Gospels.

[1] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Jn 14:26 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).

About these ads


by 17 Comments

A review of Christian Smith’s, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture

This post is a review of Christian Smith’s recent provocative book, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. My thanks go out to Brazos Press for providing me a review copy of this text.

Christian Smith is a sociologist out of Notre Dame. Although I have dabbled just a little in sociology, Smith is seemingly one of the most prominent Christian sociologists alive. In this book, Smith approaches the topic of biblical inerrancy from the perspective of a sociologist. Throughout this book, he works in a very interdisciplinary way by weaving sociology, theology, and historical and literary epistemology. This book is broken into two major parts: “The Impossibility of Biblicism”, which will be defined below, and “Toward a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture.” The first part describes the problem; the second directs us in a constructive way forward.

Smith explains what exactly biblicism is and what he describes as the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism. Before going further, it is critical to know what Smith means when he uses the word “biblicism.”

  1. Divine Writing: The Bible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is identical with God’s very own words written inerrantly in human language.
  2. Total Representation: The Bible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity, both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusive mode of God’s true communication.
  3. Complete Coverage: The divine will about all of the issues relevant to Christian belief and life are contained in the Bible.
  4. Democratic Perspicuity: Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.
  5. Commonsense Hermeneutics: The best way to understand biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit, plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value, which may or may not involve taking into account their literary, cultural, and historical contexts.
  6. Solo Scriptura: The significance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible from scratch.
  7. Internal Harmony: All related passages of the Bible on any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into single, unified, internally consistent bodies of instruction about and wrong beliefs and behaviors.
  8. Universal Applicability: What the biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all Christians at every other time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching.
  9. Inductive Method: All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down with the Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical” truths that it teaches.

The result of the above nine beliefs produce a tenth viewpoint:

10.  Handbook Model: The Bible teaches doctrine and morals with every affirmation that it makes, so that together those affirmations comprise something like a handbook or textbook for Christian belief and living, a compendium of divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects—including science, economics, health, politics, and romance.

After defining what biblicism is, Smith introduces us to different institutions and denominations that affirm a biblicist view of Scripture in their statements of faith. As he later shows, one of the issues with biblicism is that it presupposes the Bible speaks to all issues that humans experience. Thus, there are books such as Bible Answers for Almost All Your Questions, Success in School: Building on Biblical Principles, and Gardening with Biblical Plants.

Smith introduces another important term that will be used throughout this book, “Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism.” Pervasive interpretive pluralism describes a true reality of the Church (proper): we cannot come to agreement on nearly anything. Smith poignantly notes that we might say “minor in the minors and major in the majors”, but in praxis, how often does this really happen? The Church is known much more its disagreements than its agreements. Smith proves that we agree on nearly nothing – and he shows this by listing many of the three, four, and five view books. We can’t even agree on important doctrine in Christian faith as the atonement, baptism, charismatic gifts, divorce and remarriage, and the Eucharist. Because we cannot agree on nearly anything, the pragmatic purpose in holding to inerrancy is seemingly devoid of  actual reason.

Smith proposes that as Christians we need to embrace the multivocality, polysemy, and multivalency of the Christian Scriptures. Only a reading of Scripture that is formed out of the Princeton Fundamentalist/Modernist debate would assume such a wooden hermeneutic that rests, ironically, on the paradigm of modernity itself. Not only is this view philosophically dead, but by incessantly needing to base Scripture on modernity, it exalts modernity above Scripture itself. This leads to another point Smith makes: such a view of inspiration is entirely unwarranted. There have been many conclusions drawn from a few texts of Scripture that need to be rethought. It is our obsession with verification and knowing something as true through logic or science, that we have undermined the true authority of biblical Scripture, Jesus Christ.

In the second half of the book, Smith first proposes a theological/hermeneutical way forward and then an epistemic way forward. The first way forward is by adopting Barth’s Christocentric hermeneutic key. One of the most profound and freeing theological discoveries for me was the Christocentric hermeneutic key. As people who have the revelation of Jesus, Smith argues the need to interpret Scripture through the revelation that we have, not the revelation of the biblical writers. This is what Jesus did on the road to Emmaus. He diermeœneuoœ all the Scriptures concerning himself. For Barth, the Scriptures were not the central revelation of God. Rather, they were the witness to the logos. The logos was and is the true revelation of God and the Scriptures are the attestation to this revelation. Thus, when we view Scripture as attesting to the logos (in Old Testament and New Testament) we are released in assuming that Scripture speaks to all every-day issue that we experience. He contends that Scripture is not primarily there for that reason. Scripture is there to attest to what God has done and will do in Jesus Christ.

Smith argues that we need to learn to be fine with accepting the ambiguity of life and the ambiguity found within Scripture. The reason we’re not fine with this is because how heavily influenced we are by epistemic modernity. So what do we do about our obsession with a modernistic epistemology? We let go of it. The key thing matter of important is to swing to the other extreme. Smith says, “A more evangelical reading of scripture also requires Christians to break from modern epistemological foundationalism once and for all, but without sliding into a problematic postmodernism” (Smith, 149). Thus, he suggests we embrace a critical realistic epistemology (if you’re looking for a thorough treatment of critical realism, I highly recommend the first chapter of Tom Wright’s book The New Testament and the People of God).

In conclusion, I have found Christian Smith’s book to speak a lot of prophetic truth. Scripture does point to Jesus – this is the point that it’s there. Personally, as a Pentecostal, I think there needs to be a little bit more openness to Pneumatic interpretation. Reading Scripture Christocentrically and Pneumatically is not something I find to be in opposition to each other. A Christocentric hermeneutic paves way to a Pneumatic reading of the text that occurs within community and alone. Although I do not fully embrace every single thing said in Smith’s book, I do strongly recommend you pick it up, read it, wrestle with it, and apply it. This is no time for slacktivism – it’s time to do what Smith is prophetically saying to the church – to be unified despite differences.


by 9 Comments

Towards a Theology of Scripture: Has God Really Spoken?

There has been a lot of talk about what Scripture is and how to interpret it over the past five years. Books such as Kenton Sparks’ God’s Words in Human Words and Sacred Word, Broken Word, Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation, Thom Stark’s The Human Faces of God, Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible, Darrell Bock’s Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? and N.T. Wright’s Scripture and the Authority of God have flooded my “More Items to Consider”section on Amazon. Not only this, there has been a lot of blogging about what exactly Scripture is as of late. Gregory Boyd argues that a hermeneutic of cruciformity needs to be our starting place for interpreting Scripture here. Peter Enns discusses Kenton Sparks new book here. Even eminent Arminian scholar, Roger Olson, praises Sparks’ book here. Image

What do we do with the texts that seem like blunders to us? Whether it has to do with the issue of monotheism in the Old Testament, the historicity of the Exodus from Egypt, texts of genocide, the pastoral epistles, there clearly are biblical texts that cause us trouble.

If I understand correctly (I haven’t read either of Sparks’ books), Sparks argues that we need to interpret all of Scripture through the lens of Jesus himself. Since Jesus is the true revelation of God all other revelation is secondary to this. Boyd argues that a Christocentric hermeneutic is too broad, and that we need to look at the most defining act of the incarnate God, the crucifixion. Thus, Boyd argues we need to have a cruciform hermeneutic. What Boyd also argues is that where there is a depiction of God that doesn’t align with the crucified Jesus, then we essentially put it away and say that this is a fallen view of who God is, and not a true revelation of what or who God is. This also frees us up with historical inaccuracies, since this is the human and fallen side of Scripture when it factually errs. Others, such as Craig Bartholomew in his recent book, Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address has argued that the christocentric and cruciform (although he doesn’t mention the cruciform hermeneutic, the one he proposes negates it) hermeneutical approaches fall short; what we need is a Trinitarian hermeneutic! Still others not comfortable with any of these approaches take Warfield’s approach.

There clearly are tensions in Scripture, strong ones. To ignore this is intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Nevertheless, I do believe that Scripture is reliable for faith and practice. Even though it has received much criticism, Paul Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster? addresses many misunderstandings concerning the Old Testament. Not only this, but David Lamb’s book God Behaving Badly deals with ethical issues in the OT as well. But these books haven’t exhausted the issues concerning ethics and diversity in OT/NT thought. Nor have these books touched the issues of archeology and textual criticism (this isn’t to say there aren’t books that have).

What do you think? How do you interpret texts that seem to be blunders? What is your hermeneutic epistemology? How do you reconcile the God of the cross with the God who commands genocide (which isn’t to say they are two different God’s)?


by 11 Comments

Bobby Grow on the doctrine of inerrancy.

Bobby Grow

Michael Halcomb (see response here) and Greg Monette (see response here) have already answered my questions on the doctrine of inerrancy. Today I am sharing the answers given by Bobby Grow. He is beginning his Ph.D. studies at South African Theological Seminary in Systematic Theology. He has received a MA from Multnomah Biblical Seminary in Portland, OR. Recently he finished co-editing a book with Myk Habets titled Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church. (Princeton Theological Monograph Series Eugene, OR.: Pickwick Publications) that will be available this May. Also, he blogs at The Evangelical Calvinist. This was his response to my questions:

Do you use the word “inerrancy” to describe your understanding of Scripture? Why or why not? (If not, can you explain your “doctrine of Scripture?”)

I grew up ardently advocating for this terminology; it has only been over the last few years that I have taken a different approach to my doctrine of Scripture vis-á-vis an ontology of Scripture. While maintaining my identity as an Evangelical (Reformed) Christian, and some of the received history that this entails (including the intention that inerrancy sought to capture–e.g. the trustworthiness of Scripture); I would probably eschew emphasizing the language of inerrancy relative to my position (even though I remain sympathetic to it, and those who still feel the need to use it).

In a nutshell: I see Scripture within the realm of soteriology (salvation), and no longer (as the classically Reformed and Evangelical approach does) within the realm of epistemology (or a naked Philosophy). Meaning that I think a proper doctrine of Scripture must understand itself within its proper order of things. So we start with 1) Triune God, 2) The election of humanity in the Son (Covenant of Grace), 3) Creation, Incarnation (God’s Self-revelation), 4) The Apostolic Deposit of Christian Scripture (e.g. the New Testament re-interpretation of salvation history [i.e. Old Testament] in light of its fulfillment in Christ). This is something of a sketch of the order of Scripture’s placement from a theological vantage point (I don’t think the tradition that gave us inerrancy even considers such things). So I see Scripture in the realm of Christian salvation (sanctification), and as God’s triune speech act for us provided by the Son, who comes with the Holy Spirit’s witness (through Scripture). Here is how John Webster communicates what I am after:

“First, the reader is to be envisaged as within the hermeneutical situation as we have been attempting to portray it, not as transcending it or making it merely an object of will. The reader is an actor within a larger web of event and activities, supreme among which is God’s act in which God speaks God’s Word through the text of the Bible to the people of God, as he instructs them and teaches them in the way they should go. As a participant in this historical process, the reader is spoken to in the text. This speaking, and the hearing which it promotes, occurs as part of the drama which encloses human life in its totality, including human acts of reading and understanding: the drama of sin and its overcoming. Reading the Bible is an event in this history. It is therefore moral and spiritual and not merely cognitive or representational activity. Readers read, of course: figure things out as best they can, construe the text and its genre, try to discern its intentions whether professed or implied, place it historically and culturally — all this is what happens when the Bible is read also. But as this happens, there also happens the history of salvation; each reading act is also bound up within the dynamic of idolatry, repentance and resolute turning from sin which takes place when God’s Word addresses humanity. And it is this dynamic which is definitive of the Christian reader of the Bible.” (John Webster, “Hermeneutics in Modern Theology: Some Doctrinal Reflections,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 336)

So I see Scripture as God’s second Word (Jesus the first and last Word) for His people the Church. From this perspective inerrancy becomes a non-starter, since Scripture is no longer framed apologetically; but instead, Christically, and positive witness for the Church.

If you were to provide a brief definition of the doctrine of inerrancy what would it include?

Millard Erickson has provided the best indexing of innerancy[s]; he has: 1) Absolute Inerrancy, 2) Full Inerrancy, and 3) Limited Inerrancy (see Millard Erickson, “Introducing Christian Doctrine [abridged version],” 61). Realizing that there is nuance then when defining a given inerrancy; I would simply assert that inerrancy holds to the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture; meaning that Scripture is both Divine-human speech, or Divine revelation (or Gods Words). And since God cannot lie, Scripture must be totally without any error; because if it has error then God has lied.

Can there be a doctrine of inerrancy divorced from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? If so, what are the “practical” consequences? If not, why?

I think the Chicago Statement, given its recognition for literary and genre analysis of the text of Scripture has effectively allowed for the possibility of qualifying inerrancy to the point that you might end up with my current view ;-) .

How does your doctrine of Scripture impact your hermeneutics? Can you use Genesis 1-11 as a case study/example?

I would simply say that I see Genesis 1–11 as the first instance of the LORDs first Word of grace; viz. we have God introduce himself as the personal God who created, and for the purpose of creation communing with him by and through the Son (Gen. 3:15). So, no, I don’t follow Henry Morris and the Institute of Creation Research in defending a wooden literal reading of this section of Scripture. I see it literally, but as God’s introduction of himself to his Covenant people such that His people might know what he intends for his creation; viz. that we commune with him through the Son. It is through this purpose for creation that all other idolatrous parodies (like those in the Ancient Near East) fall by the way side and are contradicted by creation’s true purpose, in Christ.

What do you think of these answers?


by 3 Comments

Doctrinal statements on Scripture from various evangelical academic institutions.

Since we have been discussing the doctrine of Scripture on this blog for the past few days (and I intend to continue doing so into next week, maybe further) I thought it would be interesting to compare the doctrinal statements on Scripture from various evangelical academic institutions. Most evangelicals use language like “inerrant,” “infallible,” “true in all it affirms,” “trustworthy,” and “authoritative” to describe Scripture.

What are the differences?

Well, I decided I would display the positions of some schools that I know affirm the stricter term “inerrancy” followed by some schools that affirms something like “infallibility” or “true in all it affirms” in a sense that does not mean “inerrant.” Then I would place several other institutions together so that we can discuss whether or not the differences are obvious at face value.

Inerrancy affirming:

Dallas Theological Seminary:

We believe that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error. We believe that all the Scriptures center about the Lord Jesus Christ in His person and work in His first and second coming, and hence that no portion, even of the Old Testament, is properly read, or understood, until it leads to Him. We also believe that all the Scriptures were designed for our practical instruction.

Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary:

The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible guide in faith and practice.

Reformed Theological Seminary:

All Scripture is self-attesting and, being truth, requires the human mind wholeheartedly to subject itself in all its activities to the authority of Scripture complete as the Word of God, standing written in the sixty-six books of the Holy Bible, all therein being verbally inspired by Almighty God and therefore without error.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.

Western Seminary:

We believe that the Bible is the final standard of faith and practice for the believer in Jesus Christ and for his church. While recognizing the historical, interpretive and guiding value of creeds and statements of faith made throughout the history of the Church, we affirm the Bible alone as the infallible and final authority.

We believe that God has revealed himself and his truth by both general and special revelation. General revelation displays his existence, power, providence, moral standard, goodness and glory; special revelation manifests his triune nature and his program of redemption through Messiah for humanity. This special revelation has been given in various ways, preeminently in the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, and in the inscripturated Word of God, the Bible. We affirm that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the written Word of God given by the Holy Spirit and are the complete and final canonical revelation of God for this age.

These books were written by a process of dual authorship in which the Holy Spirit so superintended the human authors that, through their individual personalities and styles, they composed and recorded God’s Word without error in the autographs. These books, constituting the written Word of God, convey objective truth and are the believer’s only infallible rule of faith and practice.

The meaning of Scripture lies in the canonical text and is that which God intended to convey through the human authors. An interpreter discovers this meaning through careful application of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation of a text in its context, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in the community of Christ. The Holy Spirit illumines the text, enabling the reader to embrace that which God has communicated and to see the glory of Christ in the Word of God.

We could include a much longer list of schools including Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Moody Seminary, Wheaton College, and others.

Not inerrancy affirming:

Asbury Theological Seminary:

In the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both the Old and New Testaments, the only written Word of God, without error in all it affirms. The Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The Holy Spirit preserves God’s Word in the church today and by it speaks God’s truth to peoples of every age.

Fuller Theological Seminary:

God, who discloses himself to humankind through his creation, has savingly spoken in the words and events of redemptive history. This history is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word, who is made known to us by the Holy Spirit in sacred Scripture.

Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine self-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. They are to be interpreted according to their context and purpose and in reverent obedience to the Lord who speaks through them in living power.

George Fox Evangelical Seminary:

We believe that God inspired the Bible and has given it to us as the uniquely authoritative, written guide for Christian living and thinking. As illumined by the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are true and reliable. They point us to God, guide our lives, and nurture us toward spiritual maturity.

George W. Truett Theological Seminary:

We believe the scriptures, both Old Testament and New Testament are inspired, authoritative, written Word of God given to teach us what to believe and how to live.

We have no creed but the Bible, but we accept and teach consistently with what traditional Baptists have generally believed through the years.

I think schools like Acadia Divinity College and Northpark Theological Seminary avoid “inerrancy” but I could not find their statement on the matter. I am pretty sure Asbury does not affirm inerrancy, but the use of the statement “without error” sounds like inerrancy save the caveat “…in all it affirms.” It could be argued that Scripture is scientifically or historically wrong, but that it didn’t intent to “affirm” those points as much as the “theological” point, e.g. Genesis 1-11.

Questionable:

Grand Rapids Theological Seminary:

We believe that God has revealed himself in the sixty-six canonical books of Scripture, which are verbally inspired, truth without error, and serve as our final authority in faith and life. They lead us to Jesus Christ, who shows us the Father, and rightly interpreted, they enable us to understand God’s revelation in humanity, nature, and history.

John Leland Center for Theological Studies:

We believe in Jesus Christ, God’s eternal son, fully God and fully human, who lived, suffered, died, and was raised from death to life and is seated at the right hand of God as our advocate with the Father. Those who receive God’s gracious gift of salvation in Christ through repentance and faith find assurance of new life in Him.

Lincoln Christian University Seminary:

…the Old and New Testament Scriptures, is the uniquely inspired Word of God (2 Tim. 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:16-21). The Bible is the rule of faith and practice for Christians. We affirm that Scripture is the authoritative revelation from God by which we know God’s will and Christ’s authority. We seek to assert what the Scriptures clearly assert and allow freedom in other cases. We seek to understand divine intent, through authorial intent, and we seek to apply its teaching to the contemporary church and culture.

Regent College:

The divine inspiration of Holy Scripture and its consequent entire trustworthiness and supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

Regent University School of Divinity:

The Holy Bible is the inspired, infallible and authoritative source of Christian doctrine and precept.

Many evangelical liberal arts schools may be placed in this gray area. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between an inerrancy affirming institution and one with a different view. At other times it is a bit more obvious.

What are some of the practical, actual differences between a Dallas Theological Seminary and a Fuller Theological Seminary or a between a Western Seminary and a George Fox Evangelical Seminary? 


by 20 Comments

Inerrancy questionnaire.

What does it mean for Scripture to be "inerrant" or "without error?" Is there one definition of "error" and what if Scripture does have "error?" Is it possible for something constructed in human language to be free from any errors?

I have wanted to give further attention to the doctrine of inerrancy for some time now. This morning I sent out a short questionnaire to a handful of people asking if they would respond and if they’d be willing to allow their responses to be shared on this blog. I hope to gain a better understanding of the doctrine, especially because it seems quite nuanced. There are many people who won’t use the word “inerrancy” but who have a doctrine of Scripture that sounds like it could fit. There are others who use the word, but it comes with this or that caveat that others may declare invalid. I don’t expect everyone I wrote to response and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few decline because it is a contentious subject.

Personally, I have struggled with the word over the years not because I find the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy convincing. I think it tries too hard to squeeze Scripture into a modernist framework. Rather, I have found Scripture to be liturgically or sacramentally trustworthy. As with the Eucharist meal it is something limited that provides access to things eternal. I found comfort in the words of the Roman Catholic theologian Scott Hahn when he said that before Scripture was “a document it was a sacrament.” Scripture is a place where Christ meets his people. Yet I know there is more to Scripture and its traditional role in the church. For Christians it is the place where doctrine and practice is established. For those traditions that give less respect to tradition there is even more at stake.

I don’t expect Scripture to be a textbook on science, or economics, or the like. I know that there are those like Kevin J. Vanhoozer who defend the doctrine of inerrancy, but it isn’t wooden like some others. Then there are those who find Scripture utterly reliable like N.T. Wright and Craig A. Evans, but they avoid using the word inerrancy. When we discuss this subject are we saying the same thing?

I want to post the questions I sent in my message here on the blog for readers to answer. It would be good to hear from you then see what is said by those I wrote. Maybe from this discussion we’ll all gain a better understanding of a word we either accept or reject as an accurate description of the doctrine of Scripture. We can come to understand what others mean when they use this seemingly very flexible word. Let me know your thoughts on these questions:

(1) Do you use the word “inerrancy” to describe your understanding of Scripture? Why or why not? (If not, can you explain your “doctrine of Scripture?”)

(2) If you were to provide a brief definition of the doctrine of inerrancy what would it include? 

(3) Can there be a doctrine of inerrancy divorced from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? If so, what are the “practical” consequences? If not, why? 

(4) How does your doctrine of Scripture impact your hermeneutics? Can you use Genesis 1-11 as a case study/example?


by 10 Comments

John Walton’s propositions on Genesis 1.

The Lost World of Genesis One by John H. Walton

This year I hope to study the relationship between modern science and biblical origins narratives more. As I’ve mentioned previously I’d like to read C. John Collins Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care and Peter Enns’ forthcoming The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins. First though, I will be reading John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. I know this book was quite popular many months ago, but I was in the midst of my Master of Theology program (Th.M.) and there was little time for books that were not related to my immediate studies. Now that I am almost finished I can turn some of my attention elsewhere.

Walton presents eighteen propositions in his book for the reader to consider: (1) Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology; (2) ancient cosmology is function oriented;  (3) the Hebrew bara’ (“create”) concerns function; (4) the beginning in Genesis 1.1. is “nonfunctional”; (5) days one through three establish functions; (6) days four through six install those functions; (7) divine rest takes place in a temple; (8) the cosmos are described as a temple for God; (9) the seven “days” of Genesis 1 are a “cosmic temple inauguration”; (10) these days do not concern material origins; (11) this is reached via “face-value” exegesis; (12) other theories “either go too far or not far enough”‘; (13) the difference between “origins” in science and Scripture is “metaphysical in nature”; (14) God’s role as creator and sustainer are essentially one; (15) debate about Intelligent Design (ID) is about “purpose”; (16) scientific explanation can be viewed “in light of purpose”; (17) this will result in a stronger theology from Genesis 1; (18) public education should be neutral regarding purpose.

I will read each proposition and post my response on this blog. I come to the book with the following presuppositions:

First, I am a theist who affirms the existence of the Christian God. I don’t have categories for pure naturalism. So I assume that God is active in the world.

Second, I find Scripture to be trustworthy, but not inerrant. In other words, the Holy Spirit and the community of the church provide a context wherein Scripture can be understood as the guiding narrative of the community or as N.T. Wright and Kevin J. Vanhoozer have emphasized, the script that guides the cosmic drama wherein we find ourselves (yes, that is a bit of Brian McLaren’s jargon in there as well). This does not mean every scientific and historical detail must be accurate. I find that when Christianity is solely a book religion it ignores factors that the book itself promotes, namely Pneumatology and Ecclesiology.

Third, as a student of biblical literature, Second Temple Judaism, and Christian doctrine I am not qualified to speak authoritatively on science. I know many pastors and professors who sense their role as interpreters of Scripture automatically qualify them to speak for the scientific, philosophical, sociological, and other communities. This is something that needs to be approached with caution. Sure, as a student of religion I can speak from this perspective against economic injustice, but I am not foolish enough to assume that I am an expert in economics. Likewise, I can speak to science, but only as an amateur (unless I am someone like Alister McGrath who functions in both worlds and I am not).

Fourth, modern science is current, but not eternal. While I may seek to reconcile my religious views with the data available now I find caution in the reality that science itself has paradigm shifts. It science was not in flux it would not be science. Again, this doesn’t mean my exegesis of Genesis 1.1 allows me to override the best and most recent findings in evolutionary biology, but it does allow me to live with the tension that some things could change in the future and therefore I don’t have to assume that everything true about the cosmos is already set in stone.

Fifth, human epistemology is limited. This follows my last point. What I don’t want to do is be so arrogant that I think my understanding of science overrides all of the insights of my forefathers in the Christian religion. Likewise, I don’t want to fall into the trap of acting as if my understanding of Christian theology gives me the skeleton key to unlock the sciences.

I am sure other paradigms and presuppositions will be exposed as I think through this subject. It will be easy for me to rethink Genesis 1′s language, but how will I wrestle with the literalness of Adam and Eve?  I take comfort in the fact that all truth is God’s truth. If God speaks to us “theologically” through the mythology of the ancient near east and “scientifically” through the work of theoretical physicist in a lab so be it.