Auld Lang Syne

Happy new year Michael and everyone here! I’m thankful you are still online here Michael! It means a lot to me.

Happy New Year! I have to admit that it was good for me personally, which made it possible for me to encourage others having a harder year. I am dreading the coming year, and also realizing that God has a purpose in everything.
We’ll see what He does with me!

Happy New Year Michael.

Michael,

With this post, I run the risk of getting myself labeled as a fundamentalist in the most negative of connotations, but I must do so anyway. It is as a friend that I write…

Please don’t reject inerrancy. The reality is that logically, if we do not embrace inerrancy, we cannot truly embrace Scriptural authority. If we discard inerrancy, then we must necessarily decide what is authoritative and what is not. The moment we do so, we have made ourselves the authority over Scripture. We might tell ourselves “I am choosing to accept someone else’s authority or expertise, not my own”, over this particular matter or that, but logically, in doing so, we have legitimized that authority or expertise through our own authority. In the end, we have enthroned man – ourselves. I have come to understand this as the central issue of Scripture – who will we enthrone – man, or God?

Please believe me, it has never been my interest to advertise. It is not in the sense that I am offering this. But this was my Christmas Eve message to our congregation. It addresses exactly this issue, so, here goes:

John 1:1-18
In the Beginning was the Word – John 1:1

And the Word became Flesh and Dwelt Among Us – John 1:14

Have you ever thought about the image we ascribe to Jesus?
We can define Jesus in any way we desire to.
The pictures of Jesus
There are no Biblical Descriptions of Jesus
By depicting Jesus with a certain skin tone, or a certain length of hair or a certain type of Beard, indeed, even a beard at all, a certain type of eyes, a certain type of facial expression, in certain types of poses, in certain types of contexts, we are actually recasting, recontextualizing Jesus to fit our own conceptions. We are making Him in our own image.

God took pains to warn His people not to do this when He first gave them His Word at Sinai

You only heard a voice – Deut 4:5-19; Esp. v 12, 15
We can attach whatever conception we want to His image
We can attach whatever conception we want to His name
We can attach whatever conception we want to His role, His office, His Title
But we cannot attach whatever conception we want to His Word – that is, His actual Word.

Have you ever heard the phrase “A picture is worth a thousand words?”
Have you ever read a great novel or epic, and then watched the show, or movie, or perhaps seen a pictural depiction – a photograph, or drawing, or painting?
Have you ever marveled at the solidification of the image, and yet been somehow disappointed?
Why is that? I would posit that part of the reason is because words are much harder to quantify than pictures.

Words are harder to tame. Words tend to be expansive, paradigmatic. They can carry a definite meaning, and yet encompass a hundred thousand nuances all at the same time. But a picture tends to be reductionistic. A picture can bring clarity, yes, by revealing truth in definition. But a picture can also mislead. It captures something only in one point in time, not in all points in time. It captures something only in one context, not in all contexts. It captures something only in one light, not in all shades of light.

It turns out that the only time a picture is truly worth a thousand words is when that picture is given by the author, the one who uttered those words. Only the author’s selected picture can be a true representation of the author’s true intent, the speaker’s true intent.

Any other image, no matter how good, no matter how detailed, no matter how wholesome, no matter how striking, how seemingly fitting, is, any other image is, in the final analysis, only someone else’s perception, someone else’s conception, someone else’s presentation. Any other image is the conception of another person. It is a reflection of another person. It is cast in someone else’s image.

Words can carry the wrong impression too, particularly single words or small, short, memorable expressions. But the more detailed the dialogue, the more difficult it is to misconstrue or misrepresent words. The more detailed the dialogue, the more explicit the meaning of the speaker or author becomes. And yet at the same time, those words never lose their expansive, paradigmatic quality.

What we mean is that the words carry the Spirit of the speaker’s intent, not just the speaker’s technical meaning. And the spirit of someone’s intent is always much broader than technical meaning. To misrepresent a detailed dialogue or a detailed literary masterpiece, one has to either add to, take away from, or alter, either by directly changing or by reinterpreting, the author or speaker’s words. But then it is no longer the author or speaker’s message. Again, it is the conception of another person, cast in someone else’s image.

But mankind has already proven our perennial tendency to recast God’s image, and His Word, in our own conception, our own image. And so God once again, in another act of immeasurable mercy, sent His Word again. But this time, not just His own Words. He gave us His own picture:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh…

Heb 1:3 – The express image of His person
John 1:18 – No man hath seen God at any time…He hath declared Him – not just in Word, but in living color.
John 14:9 – He that hath seen me hath seen the Father

Remember, Moses said, you saw no picture, you only heard the Words. The New Testament gives us no physical description of Jesus. Why? His appearance is immaterial, and His appearance wouldn’t be an accurate description anyway. His physical appearance, background, and social standing actually threw people off.

Isaiah 53:1-3

Once again, we distanced ourselves from God’s Word.

John 1:10

Here then, is a Christmas exercise for us mentally:

What if we took the pictures of Jesus off the walls here? What if we took the images of Jesus out of our mind? What would we be left with?
Perhaps it would help us if, for just a moment, we also called Him by His original name. Oh, there’s nothing wrong with the name Jesus, it is a blessed name, it is a God-assigned name. The problem isn’t the name, the problem is all of the trappings and notions and conceptions we have surrounded that name with. What needs to happen is we need to remove all of those trappings and notions and conceptions so that we can truly understand the name Jesus.

So, for just a moment, let’s call Him by His original name. What is that name?
John 1:1

And His Name was called the Word of God – Rev 19:12-13

What happens if we call our Lord and Saviour by that name?

Matt 7:29 And He, Jesus, spoke with authority, and not as the scribes
It is the Word of God who spoke with authority. Why did He speak with authority? Because the words were HIS Words, not someone else’s understanding, or conception, or presentation of His Words, but HIS WORDS.
He knew the author’s intent

John 14:15 It is the Word of God who said “If you love me, keep my commandments
John 8:58 Is is the Word of God who said “Before Abraham was, I am”
Over and over in Matthew 5 in the Sermon on the mount, it is the Word of God who said “You have heard that has been said, but I say to you – Matt 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 38, 39, 44
John 7:37 It is the Word of God who said “If any man is thirsty, let Him come to me”
John 14:6 It is the Word of God who said “I am the way the truth and the Life.
It is the Word of God who said “No man comes to the father but through me”
In John 10:9, It is the Word of God who said “I am the door. If any man enters by me, he will be saved.”
In Matthew 11:28-30, It is the Word of God who said “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”
That is the language of Kingship and Sovereignty by the way. Jesus is putting Himself in direct comparison with the heavy, burdensome yoke and rule of Solomon and all of the other kings.
In John 8:12, It is the Word of God who said “I am the light of the World, He who follows me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life”
John 14:15 It is the Word of God who said “If you love me, keep my commandments”
John 15:4 It Is The Word of God who said “Abide In Me, and I in You. As the branch cannot bear fruit, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

Do you see how that instantly changes our perspective on all of these Scriptures? We can take the name of Jesus, and picture of Jesus, subject them to ourselves, and define them however we want, and then nod in agreement with all of these Scriptures. But if we understand His name, His identity, to be the Word of God, where does that leave us standing?

Perhaps the most terrifying one is this:

In Matt 7:23, it is the Word of God who said “Many will come to me and say, Lord, we have done many wonderful works in your name. And It is the Word of God who will say “Depart from me, I never knew you
That word “knew”, is experiential. It speaks of an actual encounter.

How could it be that the Word of God never knew them? Because they had never actually encountered the Word of God. They never actually approached Him, the Word. They never took the time to have an audience with the Word, to let the Word speak, to hear the Word. And because they never actually did that, the Word had never actually met them.

They talked about Him, they called themselves by His name, but they had never actually met him. They never actually bowed before Him.

King In Jeshurun – Deut 33:1-5

How can we enthrone Jesus as a True King, Not just as a Monarchial ornament of our own making?

The Words of the Christmas Carol show us the way:

The King of Kings lay in lowly manger; In all our trials born to be our friend.
He knows our need, to our weakness is no stranger, Behold your King! Before Him lowly bend!
Behold your King, Before Him lowly bend!

Tonight, on this night, our Sovereign lay in a manger. But He is no ornament or cultural icon. You and I do not have the freedom to define Him. What we must do, is bow to Him. What we must do is to dethrone ourselves and enthrone The Word Of God.

Tonight, tomorrow, this Christmas, let God’s work of restitution begin in your life. Confess to Him your sins. Know that He is sufficient. And then, enthrone His Word in your heart and your life…

Now that the sermon (literally) is over, I will qualify it with one thing:

Embracing the authority of the Word does not mean we do not have the ability to exercise Textual Criticism. God has entrusted man with the Keeping of His Word. There are corrupt manuscripts, and of course there are corrupt Bible versions, or corrupt Bible Versions. What inerrancy means is that God’s original Word is without error, and that God has always, at all points in history, left man with the evidence, the ability, and the opportunity to determine His Word.

For me, if I surrender Inerrancy, I surrender my faith.

Again, I write this as a friend.

Please forgive any wrongdoing I may have committed.

I think its a good discussion and don’t see any offense, so I will continue it, until asked otherwise.

My background – 20+ years in ministry, MDiv, Ordained SBC. In short, life fell apart and the faith did not hold. It didn’t deliver what it promised, and pretending that it did was untenable. I had to let go of it all, to see if there is anything worth holding onto. I have realized that god is alive and that he is good, and that somehow, he cares for me.

That said, I can’t survive in the conservative evangelical world anymore, not with any kind of faith. I had to find Jesus outside that camp. I’ve already seen the other side. Inerrancy is a doctrine, or a set of doctrines, with the purpose of explaining away all the things that look like errors. I bought into it for a long time, the same as you, and argued it here for years. In the end, inerrancy is a faith statement. Evidence points otherwise, but we make this statement of faith anyway. That’s OK, I guess, and if you never have the need to let it go, I don’t know why you would. I only write to say, I hope there is faith outside of that camp, because I can’t possibly live there again.

I would even argue against the use of “Authority of Scripture”. I know many belong to groups that require those type of faith statements, and thankfully, I no longer do. But obviously, we do view all scripture as authoritative, and certainly all scripture is not held as equally authoritative. These things are really self-evident. The freedom of being apostate is that I can tell the truth about these things.

The other thing you guys don’t know is that these things don’t scare Jesus at all. He understands that I have these questions before I even ask them. He’s cool with it.

A couple of leaps in logic from you Terry –
“If the Word is not fully inerrant, logically, it cannot be fully authoritative over our lives.”
This makes no sense. We submit to many things as authoritative that are not inerrant. The bible is the only thing that we try to hold to that standard. Rules at work, the US Constitution…tons of things, we daily and willingly submit to as athoritative without asking them to be inerrant.

“If we surrender the Word in any way, we surrender the real identity of Jesus. That is why this is such an urgent matter.”
One would assume that Jesus would be God even if the printing press had never been invented. What we think of as “The bible” is a fairly modern invention in its current form. In the time when Jesus was on earth and his believers were multiplying rapidly, almost none of what we call The Bible was availble to believers. Still, Jesus was / is God.

Josh,

It’s nice to meet you, and like you, I’m happy to have a civil discourse! You and I are in agreement on the principals that you have held forth – but that is not what I said. I did not say “If the Word is not fully inerrant, logically, it cannot be authoritative over our lives.” – I said ““If the Word is not fully inerrant, logically, it cannot be FULLY authoritative over our lives.” Like you, I accept the authority of the law, the authority of authorities (no pun intended) and officials, the authority of history textbooks (but with the caveat that all must be ready critically, of course). But none of these things are FULLY authoritative for us. In the end, we hold out the option to disobey law if it is immoral, to disregard instructions if they are in fact unethical, immoral, or would result in a denial of God. In each of those situations, we hold something else to have a higher authority – and we hold out the option for ourselves to exercise our own authority in determining that. That’s natural and normal, but we must then admit that if we do the same thing with God’s Word, we are holding something else – and ourselves, as a potential trumping authority over it.

By the way, I should perhaps provide some context. I am not an absolute literalist. I understand Scripture to be literature, and literature involves fact, fiction, hypothesis, metaphor, and hyperbole. I understand that much/most prophecy is written poetry, and must be read and understood with the same sensitivity as any poetic literature. I do take the Bible literally when, in historic prose, it purports to be taken literally. I am not a “Left Behind”-er.

I believe that we cannot understand the New Testament without carefully studying the Old Testament. I believe that, unfortunately largely due to Dispensationalism, most of Evangelicalism has been taught to read the Old Testament through a lens or superimposed framework. That framework has its roots in the ancient Zionism of Jeremiah’s day. As a result, much of the Church has misunderstood BOTH Testaments.

This is not to say that I believe that everything written in our versions is inerrant. A sample of any 3 versions will easily disprove that. But I do believe the Providence of God has left His people with the means to discern what was originally written. Most do not exercise that option. It’s hard work. It’s part of what Moses was talking about in Deuteronomy 6.

And with respect to the Bible being a fairly modern invention in its current form, that will take a bit of unpacking. (But I’m willing to take that journey together). What we must understand is what Jesus Himself said over and over – the Old Testament Scriptures speak of Him. Not just a few Messianic Prophecies. He is on every page. All He needed, all the Disciples needed, all the first Century Christians needed for life in Christ was the Old Testament. There is a very real sense in which the New Testament is merely midrash – that is, explanatory of the Old Testament.

All this talk about the Old Testament might raise a few concerns. I am not a Zionist, I am not a Messianic Jew, I am not a legalist who believes we should return to the law – in fact, far from it.

“Suffice it to say that we agree that Jesus is the final authority.”

There’s only one place where one can learn what that means, entails, promises, exhorts, warns, etc.

Someone please enlighten me, but I don’t understand how Jesus can be one’s authority but the Bible isn’t? An errant Bible can’t be an authority.

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Josh, I will be happy to continue the dialogue with you, so long as the rest of the onlooking crowd doesn’t mind 🙂

One caveat, and a couple of requests: I am a “tentmaker”, meaning I have had secular employment for the entire duration of my ministry. My responses to you may come a bit time-delayed (yesterday, I had some flexibility, today I am a bit more tied to my desk). So it may be a bit, but I will try to get at least a few responses in today.

The next item: A gentle favor. Since we are attempting to engage a level-ground dialogue,
Previously, you made the statement:
“The freedom of being apostate is that I can tell the truth about these things.”
I don’t believe you intended to, but such a statement automatically does two things:

1. It implicitly assumes both the moral and intellectual high ground for yourself. It’s not that I would place you on a different ground, but it places the person you are in dialogue with in a “playing from behind” posture.

2. Your statement also implies that either intentionally or unintentionally, the person you are in dialogue with is not telling the truth because their prior commitments will not allow them to.

Could we agree together to try to keep this on level ground?

Finally, one of the things that has surfaced in comments from you and Michael:

Michael stated “I’m wearing mixed fabrics as we speak”
You stated perhaps a few similar indicators, a sample of which would be:
“Do women wear head coverings at your church?”

To address those concerns, I will clarify that there is a difference between law being authoritative, and law being “in force”. There are also differences in the law.
For example, the 10 Commandments are paradigmatic – I would posit that they are both expansionistic and permanent, because they are a revelation of God’s nature. But the food, clothing, and festival laws, amongst others, are didactic, and typological, and as a result, they are not abolished, but fulfilled. I’m sure you are aware of the New Testament Scriptures where this has been made clear.

Now to add a bit of levity, human color, and perhaps irony to the situation: No, the women do not wear head coverings at our church. However, by interesting coincidence, my wife of 27 years is from Delhi, India. We met as I was serving there from ’96-99. Christian women in India do wear head coverings, and if they do not, at least in older cultural context, they are regarded as “loose” and “fair game”. That situation is changing now, with the influence of westernization. However, Paul addressed the same contextual situation in 1 Corinthians 12-14 with respect to women and headcoverings. That’s why he stated, “If she is not to wear a headcovering, let her be altogether shorn”…My wife does not wear a headcovering here – but she does when she gets off the plan in Delhi. My mother in law (her mother) suffered a heart attack on New Year’s Day. We arranged an emergency flight for my wife, and she is there now – wearing a salwar kameez with chunni (headcovering). I do not have such rules for Christian women here – but I insist on them, even for American women – in India, because, as Paul has made clear, “Optics matter” when it comes to what outsiders think of the respectability of the Gospel.

Terrie – I haven’t been offended and will try to abide by your “level ground” agreement, but you must understand that you start the conversation by removing any level ground that this side could stand on:
“If we surrender the Word in any way, we surrender the real identity of Jesus. That is why this is such an urgent matter.”
The warning there is implicit, but obvious for any of us who came up in that system. Again, I’m not offended, but if the implication is that I have surrendered the real identity of Jesus, then my accepting that I am apostate and declaring the freedom that it has brought, hardly seems like claiming the high ground. It seems more like accepting the terms that you laid out to begin the conversation.
I do understand your argument for why you accept certain parts of scripture as more authoritative than others. I am completely familiar with the Chicago Statement, and argued its merit for years. It is a fine doctrinal statement, but certainly not expressed in the bible itself, or on the early creeds. I don’t have a problem with someone adhering to that doctrine, but I argue against the idea that faith outside of it is impossible. I was taught and believed that way for a long time, so when the veil fell, my first assumption was that I was condemned and I may as well accept my fate as an atheist. Thankfully, God continued to reveal himself to me in unexpected ways, and though unsettled, now have hope that I can still be a follower of Jesus even without inerrancy.

I am up to hearing your hermeneutic for the Old Testament, but to be honest, I’ll be shocked if I haven’t encountered it in my study before. And if I haven’t, I was warned against arbitrary interpretations. Still, in my state, I’d be down to hear it.

Kindred spirits – I was also bi-vocational for most of my ministry career. My calling was to all the older dying congregations in my area.

Terrie, I admire your ministry more than you could know. I also understand, as a teacher, the need to have a tight system. I don’t begrudge your stance, and I hope it serves you well all your life. Having to let that system go has been one of the hardest things I’ve ever endured.

I’m not sure what you are getting at with your apocalyptical questions, but your follow up should be interesting. I’ll only comment on #4 for now – I’m not sure it was intended to be understood. I think if it was, it would have been written in plain language rather than wild imagery.

Josh,

My concern is not with apocalyptical questions, or eschatology. We can leave those questions as rhetorical for now.

But I would ask you to engage with me (and more importantly, with the text) for a bit. Remember, I voiced earlier the understanding that Scripture is a literary work.

1. Could you read Revelation 13:1-18 and take in the total context.
2. Jot down any observations you may have about overall context, then interesting or noteworthy details.
3. Now hone in on verses 16-18. What are the contextual features or details that stand out to you?
4. Where are the only 2 other places in Scripture where the number 666 appears? (Hint, both places are describing the same person in the same historical context).
5. When you find those 2 passages, look at the surrounding context. Do you see any features that their surrounding context have with Rev 13:16-18? What are those features or circumstances?
6. Finally, do any of those features or circumstances have anything in common with features or circumstances in Revelation 18?

We will eventually be moving on to a non-apocalyptic passage, so for now I’m asking to please accept my reassurance that this is not about apocalypse or eschatology. It is about the New Testament view of the Old Testament.

Sorry man, feel free to lay out your point, but I can’t do the bit by bit quiz.