Why Did the Pope Choose “Leo” for His Name?
Here’s an interesting piece on AI and the reason why the new pope chose the name “Leo”.
The article raises some real concerns about the growth of AI and its consequences.
This reminds me of a talk I heard N.T.Wright give on why its time for the church to again look at the doctrine of biblical anthropology…what humans were created to be and are in the eyes of God.
With all the questions around transgenderism and now, transhumanism, the church should convene a council to define these issues in light of scientific advancements and advancements to come.
We should be praying for an ecumenical response to these matters…and that such a council would even be possible.
As I suspected, you have completely lost your mind….resorting to NT Wright, who is anti biblical on so many things fits perfectly with your world view of biblical truth. May God give you wisdom in these things
Greg,
What is Wright anti-biblical about?
He’s a well respected mainstream scholar…such slander deserves specifics.
Slander misrepresents my comments as it denotes defaming someone, which I did not do. I simply said that I believe many of his positions are clearly anti biblical. Start with his teachings on justification or his stated position of not believing in the inerrancy of God’s word. Don’t takey word for Ii t… Read it for yourself
Greg,
I have a bookshelf full of his books.
I do not believe in inerrancy either…and I think his views on justification are more biblical than most Protestant efforts.
Everything he writes is soaked in Scripture…you just don’t care for his interpretations.
I would note that Wright fully affirms the authority of Scripture…which I do as well, in matters of doctrine and practice.
Greg,
I’m not Reformed, nor a Lutheran, nor, an evangelical, nor a Roman Catholic.
All of the above and more have some distinct doctrines of justification…and they all believe they draw them from the Scriptures and are faithful to them.
Saying otherwise would be a lie…just as you have lied about Wright.
When you or NT Wright believe the bible contains errors it becomes functionally impossible to fully affirm the authority of scripture….Further, we are not at all talking about other denominations or what they teach, but rather specifically NT Wright and what he teaches, largely making that argument irrelevant….As well, in my experience with you, your proclivity to consistently label people derogatorally is notable.. Calling me a liar, while predictable, is counter productive to you being able to understand…..Lastly, when one (you and NT) fails to realize the inerrancy of scripture, you open the door to philosify the bible whenever and wherever you like, to fit your paradigm.
The Bible does contain discrepancies, errors, and contradictions.
This is to be expected for a book written by humans over centuries and copied enumerable times.
This doesn’t take anything away from the authority of Scripture…it has a coherent narrative and no one would ever make up what Jesus said in Jesus time…and noting the errancy of the Bible does not change any doctrine related to salvation.
You should actually read some Wright on the topic…it would be illuminating for you…
You are saying that the bible is full of errors, discrepancies and contradictions. You attempt to validate this position in a strictly human context, “this is to be expected for a book written by humans over centuries and copied enumerable times”. You fail to mention, and apparently don’t understand, that all scripture is from God and dispatched by Him thru the quil of men that he Himself raised up. This means ALL scripture is literally “God breathed” 1 Tim 3:16. In the original all means all and thats is all all means.
I have read enough of Wright to know that he is like a lot of so called “biblical scholars” where much of what they teach is right, however many things they teach is anti biblical.
Correction 2 Tim 3:16
ALL scripture reads exactly how God intended it to. God makes no mistakes and never changes
Greg,
There are errors and contradictions…would it be helpful if I listed just a few?
All it takes to blow inerrancy out of the water is one…
The reality is that some folks have to believe the text is perfect or their faith is in vain…which means their faith is in something other than the living Christ.
I can accept that the text is not perfect…and still believe every cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.
Understanding that the text is not perfect doesn’t make someone “anti-biblical”…it makes them intellectually honest while still upholding the authority of Scripture.
God doesn’t make mistakes, but humans do…and it’s not difficult to show that in the Biblical text…
This fallacy that you are pushing is dangerous. If we say hey, I will decide whether a particular passage is an error, discrepancy or contradiction. This allows one to pick and choose what HE decides is the correct meaning of the passage. The issue with this type of thinking is one of Lordship
It’s scary to think that he chose inspect on the theme of artificial intelligence, it makes all the doomsayers and theorists sound tame, this is really happening.
Greg,
Everyone decides the correct meaning of a passage on their own. That’s why we have 33,000 Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans, and the Orthodox.
We join the group we most agree with.
Jesus is Lord…the Bible is reliable, authoritative, and trustworthy.
He chose his papacy
This debate is pretty much pointless.
I affirm all the early creeds and confessions of faith (none of which make inerrancy a doctrine) and spend most of my life studying or teaching the Scriptures.
I believe in the Gospel…and revere the Scriptures.
There will be no denominations in heaven, only the bride of Christ. The point is not that people can just interpret the scriptures as they like in this sort of ecumenical spirit that says just believe whatever you like. What a dangerous position to push. The point is to “search the scriptures to see if they be true”. God is saying we are all responsible to rightly understand the scriptures. This is only possible thru the inspiration and revelation of the Holy Spirit whom God had sent to us to help us understand scripture and how it applys to us
Greg,
Spirit filled people disagree about many things…unless you want to damn everyone outside whatever sect you belong to, that is a mystery we have to deal with in grace.
Inerrancy is not a doctrine but rather a truth that is clearly taught throughout scripture for a very important reason; left to our own devices. Wicked hearts and sin nature we will screw up the simple truths ok the bible and in short order find ourselves in the camp you are in. One that says ” I will decide this or that…fill in the blank. The bible is full of stories from cover to cover regarding this type of thinking. Judges being perhaps the most descriptive of the consequences of doing what was right in their own sight
Greg,
In your ignorance, you resort to slander.
I have clearly written that I embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.
I don’t simply make up my doctrine as I go…I stand on the shoulders of men and women who have studied the Scriptures for 2000 years and the Bible is my final authority on matters of doctrine and practice.
Outside your little cave there are countless faithful men and women who love the Lord Jesus Christ without holding to the doctrine of inerrancy…people who love the written word as much or more than you do.
You can say I’ve lost my mind or that I make it up as I go…but you falsely accuse the brethren when you do so.
I leave you with a simple question…who killed Goliath?
Scripture gives us conflicting answers… 1 Samuel 17 or 2 Samuel 21:19.
there you go again…. Oh well…. Blessings to you….you make many assumptions and assertions that are not biblically accurate which proves my point nicely. When you decide what is correct instead of letting scripture interpret scripture you end up where you are. May God give you wisdom in your confusion.
“I leave you with a simple question…who killed Goliath?
Scripture gives us conflicting answers… 1 Samuel 17 or 2 Samuel 21:19.”
Simple answer: David killed Goliath of Gath. Second Samuel depicts the next generation of giants, one of which was Goliath Jr, a Gittite.
Here’s one for you:
Who was the first king of Israel?
“Here’s one for you:
Who was the first king of Israel?”
The LORD.
“I leave you with a simple question…who killed Goliath?”
Simple question, but not a simple answer as JD asserts. Even as inerrantists all agree that it was David who killed Goliath, among them they give varying possible explanations given as to why the passage in Second Samuel seemingly says that a different person than David killed Goliath.
I hold to inerrancy, although not as militantly as some. However, those of us of who do hold to inerrancy must acknowledge that there often are not simple or definitively clear explanations to some things that appear to be potential errors or contradictions in Scripture.
Kevin,
Well stated…. Could not agree more
Kevin
There is an explanation that relies on Scripture to explain the matter:
The same event is recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:5: “And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”
The only difference between this passage and the second passage in 2nd Samuel is that 1st Chronicles includes “Lami the brother of” Goliath….
One doesn’t have to charge the Holy Spirit with an error. We don’t have the original scroll, so we don’t know if the missing information was the result of a copying error by a later copyist.
All three passages are most likely talking about the same Goliath. A Gittite is a person who is from the Philistine city of Gath.
War again, a different war.
Who was the first human king of Israel?
Consider this story (adapted from a true story):
Greg Jones was an evangelical Christian, active in his church, a regular preacher, teacher and served on the elder board. He says that he was addicted to fundamentalism. He slept, ate, and drank the truths of Christianity. After a decade of faithful service to the church, he is now a professing atheist who rejects the naivety of all that he held to so dearly. Why? Well, as he tells the story, he says that he was awakened out of his slumber of fundamentalism through many encounters with “the truth.” Chief among these encounters was when he finally realized that the Bible was “full of errors.” He describes his turn by referencing the discrepancies that he found throughout Scripture and being unable to come to a way to reconcile them. “For years,” he describes, “I was the best at answering the skeptic with regards to any objection that he could levy against the Scriptures. I knew how to reconcile any supposed contradiction. It became like an art form that I was proud of. No matter how difficult the problem, I could find a way out. After a time, I don’t know why, but I began to reflect upon the lengths that I had to go to make it all fit together. I realized that the art of answering the contradictions became a subjective smokescreen that I raised not only to those I was responding to, but also to myself. I had to be honest with myself. John says ‘No one who is born of God sins,’ then turns around and says “If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father.” Which one is it? There are literally hundreds of problems like this in Scripture. My answers may have satisfied those I taught, but they no longer satisfied me. Eventually I realized (sadly, I might say) that I had to let go of the inerrancy of Scripture. Once I did that, I had to let go of Christianity all together.”
This description is a common testimony of many who have walked away from the faith. But this blog is not about walking away from the faith per se, but with the danger of the doctrine of inerrancy. When Greg rejected the doctrine of inerrancy because of his inability to reconcile the discrepancies, did this necessarily mean that he had to walk away from the faith?
Here is the question: Is the doctrine of inerrancy so central to the Christian faith that if one were to deny it, he or she should pack their bags and search for a new worldview? In other words (and let me be very clear), if the Scriptures are not inerrant, does that mean the Christian faith is false?
Most of you know that I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. I call my view “reasoned” inerrancy which does not suppose a particular wooden hermeneutic to be tied to it. (You can read more about it here).
Having said this, I believe that this doctrine, while important, is not the article upon which Christianity stands or falls. I believe that the Scriptures could contain error and the Christian faith remain essentially in tact. Why? Because Christianity is not built upon the inerrancy of Scripture, but the historical Advent of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christ became man, lived a perfect life, died an atoning death, and rose on the third day not because the Scriptures inerrantly say that these events occurred, but because they did, in fact, occur. The truth is in the objectivity of the event, not the accuracy of the record of the event. The cause and effect must be put into proper place here. The historical event of the incarnation caused the recording of Scripture, Scripture was not the cause of the events. Again, Christianity is founded upon the Advent, not the inerrant record of the Advent.
Think about this: Do we only trust the historical records of those accounts that have an inerrant witness? Are the ancient histories inerrant? I have never heard anyone say that Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE) was inerrant in his records of Roman history, yet we treat him as generally reliable. As well, Josephus (37- after 93 CE) is seen as a generally reliable Jewish historian, but not inerrant. Those who write history books for our schools today do not have to submit a resume with credentials of inerrancy before they are approved by the publishers to write upper-level history textbooks do they? No. Why? Because it is a well accepted understanding that people can give a reliable and truthful witness, even if they are not inerrant. What if we followed the example set by Greg in the above story. Once we find a discrepancy of any kind in any work, this renders the entire work untrustworthy. If this were our method of historical inquiry, we would be completely agnostic to all of history. We would end up saying that all works written by historians of past are complete lies and fabrications, because they are not inerrant.
Thankfully, this is not the dilemma that is presented to us in understanding history (or any other discipline). We understand that people, while errant, can give us generally trustworthy accounts. Those who hold positions as university professors, scientists, engineers, historians, mathematicians, politicians, and just about every other career must rely upon the general trustworthiness of the witness of other errant individuals.
Let’s take this same approach with the Scriptures for a moment. Let’s assume that the Scriptures are not inerrant. (Please, at least attempt to go there with me!). Let’s take it a step further and say that the Scriptures are not inspired at all. Here then is the situation: the Scriptures are a collection of 66 ancient historical records, given through various types of literature. The records, like any other record, may have errors-historical, scientific, or otherwise. Now that we are rollin’, let’s say that John did indeed make a mistake about the number of women who came to the tomb of Jesus after His resurrection. Does this make the testimony of John completely false? Does this mean that the entire testimony of John is now wrong at every turn? Of course not! Any historian who followed this methodology would quickly find himself out of a job, for he would have no sources for his research. If the Scriptures were like any other records of history with minor discrepancies, then this would not justify a total rejection of the events they record. Their credibility is based upon the assumption of general historic reliability as evidenced through the rules of historic inquiry—which do not include a criteria for inerrancy.
Let me take this one more step further. The fact is that we don’t even need the Scriptures in order for Christianity to be true. Remember, the Christian worldview is Christocentric (centered around the Advent of Christ), not bibliocentric (centered around the Bible). It is because of God’s grace that we even have the record of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. But if for some reason God had decided to withhold His grace and not record these events in Scripture, does this mean that the events did not take place? Of course not. Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection are historical events that happened whether or not we have inspired records.
You may say to me, how would we know about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ had it not been recorded? This is a good question, but you must first take this next step of concession. Not only is it true that Christianity is not dependent upon inerrancy, inspiration, and recording of the events, but it is also not reliant upon our knowledge of the events. Theoretically speaking, God could have sent His Son to die for the world and raise from the grave and not told anyone at all and Christianity would still be true. The point is that Christianity stands or falls upon the historical truth of the Advent of the Son of God, not the record of these events through Scripture. How God decides to communicate these events, should He choose to do so, is not the issue. I suppose, for the sake of arguement, God could have used unwritten tradition, the testimony of angels, dreams and visions, or direct encounters.
Now, apologetically speaking, there is no reason whatsoever, I believe, for one to reject the general historical reliability of the Scriptures if presented as such. If one were to accept the Gospels, for instance, like any other historical writing, then they would have to be persuaded of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth based upon honest and solid historical inquiry. If they did not, then, in my opinion, their methodology is flawed by other unjustifiable presuppositions such as the impossibility of miracles.
Why did Greg feel compelled to reject the entirety of Christianity because of a few supposed errors? Because that is what he was taught by conservative, well meaning Christians. I believe that we often times, in our zeal for the Scriptures, create a false dilemma suggesting that belief in inerrancy and total rejection of the Christian message are the only two options. These are not the only two options. The Scriptures can be generally reliable historical accounts and the Christian faith still be true.
To those of you who are struggling with or reject the doctrine of inerrancy, while I believe you are wrong, this does not mean that you have grounds to reject the historicity of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God as recorded in Scripture. There are 27 ancient documents that have historical credibility that must be referenced just like any other ancient document (not to mention the witness of dozens of first and second century historical documents that are not included in this New Testament canon). If you reject Christianity based upon your belief of the errancy of these documents, you must also reject all the records of ancient history.
To those of you who believe in inspiration and inerrancy, your belief is on solid ground. But please be careful not to create a false dilemma concerning a strict adherence to your persuasion. While the authority of God’s word is of central importance, Christianity is Christocentric, not bibliocentric. Christ is still Lord, even if the Scriptures were never written.
What is the danger of inerrancy? Making it the doctrine upon which the Christian faith stands or falls. Again, while I hold to this doctrine, I am not even convinced that it is a linchpin of Evangelicalism.
Jean,
Yes, we can deduce explanations from Scripture. I think in the end there is an explanation for the discrepancy which lays no “error” upon the Holy Spirit. My point, however, is that there is no clear, obvious, documented to be definitively true explanation for the apparent discrepancy. There are different theories, relying on Scripture, which give reasonable explanation for the apparent discrepancy, many of them assuming the likelihood of a copyist error.
But there is no way for us to look at Scripture and say, “This is definitely the Scriptural reason and explanation for why it looks like there might be an error but there actually isn’t.” Without having the original scrolls and without having all the documented needed relevant information that pertain to those particular circumstances, we can’t point to a definitive explanation.
Jean,
I do not charge the Holy Spirit with error…that’s preposterous.
I charge the humans who wrote the errors with errors.
Errors are still errors.
None of them change the person and work of Jesus Christ…who is the object of my faith.
I spent a lot of time as an evangelical and Reformed evangelical trying to explain away preposterous things.
According to inerrantists, the world was populated through incest.
I don’t buy that anymore.
My eyes can clearly see two different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2…historical literary critics can see it as well and explain it reasonably.
There is very little historical or archeological support for most of the Old Testament events…one can grapple with that or pretend that all science is wrong.
I chose to wrestle…and came out with faith and doctrine not only intact, but flourishing.
Your m mileage may vary…
Michael,
The point you continually miss is when you believe the bible is full of errors, discrepancies and contradictions, the door is wide open to then believe whatever you want to believe according to how you decide to edit what God’s word says. This is a dangerous place to be. The HS was sent by God to help us understand scripture. He is perfectly willing and able to do that. Continually pointing out what you discern as errors, discrepancies or contradictions is a waste of time. My encouragement is to spend your time accepting the Word as absolute truth and allow the HS to reveal God’s meaning in a particular passage, which will change your world view. Start by removing yourself from the equation. Let me ask you a question, why would a perfect God
(in every way) allow men (writers of the bible) to write things that would be confusing and misunderstood to those who read it. And then send a Helper (HS) straighten out all the errors, discrepancies and contradictions. Makes no sense
Greg,
This is tiresome.
The perils you claim befall those who reject inerrancy already happen through differing interpretations of the Scriptures.
Talking to me as if I need counsel is insulting…I’ve been teaching the Scriptures and pastoring God’s people for almost four decades.
Thinking that you need to tell me how to read the Bible is so arrogant as to beggar description.
The Bible is both human and divine and the Holy Spirit guides us into truth despite the very human errors in the text.
The Lord values truth…and I will always pursue the truth even when it clashes with traditions.
Greg,
Did you even bother to read the cut and paste you posted here?
It says basically the same things I’m saying that you want to argue about…
“Why did Greg feel compelled to reject the entirety of Christianity because of a few supposed errors? Because that is what he was taught by conservative, well meaning Christians. I believe that we often times, in our zeal for the Scriptures, create a false dilemma suggesting that belief in inerrancy and total rejection of the Christian message are the only two options. These are not the only two options. The Scriptures can be generally reliable historical accounts and the Christian faith still be true.”
the idea that you want to continually flash your teaching credentials is interesting. The point is not how much time you have spent studying or teaching the bible. I mean congratulations to you for your commitment to the Word. The point is, are you on the right track with what you teach. You can be sincere in your motives and be sincerely wrong at the same time. I can see how it would be tiresome for you as there is no freedom in that
greg,
I’m done now.
Inerrancy is like Linus’s blankey for lots of folks…and that’s ok.
I will continue to use the tools God gave me to pursue God’s truth.
You were done long before now my friend. May God give you wisdom in the days ahead
What a jerk.
bob1,
It’s always been this way with that segment of the church…they condemn anything and anyone that doesn’t fit into their narrow little box…
always good to remember when you persist in pointing fingers at someone that there are three more fingers pointing back at you. I have not one time condemned your beliefs…..not once. What I have said is that your position on inerrancy is flawed and dangerous. Never said you were not saved and going to heaven or anything of the sort because you don’t believe in the inerrancy of scripture. I have simply pointed out the dangers of this thinking. You have a lot of pride and I think it gets in the way of clear thinking. I see your buddy Bob subscribes to the same name calling drill as you. That’s nice….
typical action on your part. Canceling people that have a different opinion than you is such your style. Actually, surprised you did not cancel me sooner. Congratulations on that…….some growth
Greg
I am in no way a defender of Michael’s point of view, but I find your belief system confusing and dangerous in the very way you condemn others.
“And then send a Helper (HS) straighten out all the errors, discrepancies and contradictions. Makes no sense”
The problem is this, how do you know the HS is speaking to you or any other person? What if your idea of the HS is actually an accumulation of your life experiences, doctrinal teachings, those people who influenced your walk in life, and so many other things? Essentially the glasses you see life through.
What if you lived in a medieval world with no connection to actual Roman and Greek philosophies or actual knowledge of the Holy land and its traditions? Let’s make it more real, you grew up on an isolated island in the South Pacific with a stone god led by the local chief?
How would you know the sound of the HS or your own imaginations?
Okay, you will balk at that and have some sort of answer.
The next question is this, how do you know your version/translation of the text is accurate and not influenced by the doctrines of the translators (which include those who translated the KJV)?
Ask yourself this question, “is my idea of “inerrancy” accurate?”
I remember hearing a preacher say this, “If I don’t feel the HS in me I just start talking until I do…” What he actually felt was the energy of the crowd supporting him and not the HS.
greg,
I do not sit in front of the computer 24/7.
Evidently, you have been banned before…and I see why.
You have consistently insulted and demeaned me, unable to articulate anything but insults .
Now, you are gone…not because your opinion differs, but because you are rude and refuse to engage decently.
“What if your idea of the HS is actually an accumulation of your life experiences, doctrinal teachings, those people who influenced your walk in life, and so many other things? Essentially the glasses you see life through.”
True for all of us to one degree or another…
It’s not a “calling drill ”
You’ve been acting like a complete jerk
on here.
This is a worthwhile topic of discussion…an important topic.
When I was a young man learning about the Bible, people who didn’t hold to inerrancy were mainly in academia and demonized in evangelical culture.
It was an easy topic to ignore because that information was not easily accessible.
Inerrancy was assumed and simply part of the Christian culture that saturated society.
Today the culture is different…non inerrantists are interacting in the mainstream of Christian ideas and people not soaked in Christian tradition are listening.
Younger people in particular are not accepting “the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it”.
They want real answers and engagement.
Instead of trying to convince people that the Bible is somehow perfect in all it says, we need to be relating to how the Bible is authoritative, trustworthy, and the revelation of God communicated through humans…”true” in what it says about God and humanity.
All I ask is that then debate be irenic and the engagement honest.
.
Inerrancy works well until it doesn’t. Once that falls apart for you, you can’t just decide to ignore what you’ve seen and go back to believing something you no longer believe.
I’m glad faith exists for those who can no longer see the bible in that way.
Its a hypothetical argument anyway, because we don’t have these original manuscripts that were supposed to have been perfect. If we talk about the actual text we have in front of us, we all agree, there are some issues.
Greg,
Your first sentence in the thread…
“As I suspected, you have completely lost your mind”
Later on:
“You have a lot of pride and I think it gets in the way of clear thinking.”
Behind the scenes:
“Michael has no peace in his life and I believe it skews his perspective on things. “
All the while refusing to actually engage in discussion and do so respectfully.
The last comment was just weird…I’m more at peace than I’ve ever been in life.
You’ve had your say…and we’re done now.
I do invite others to comment on their views of Scripture and how they deal with this issue.
Michael,
Has this gentleman ever looked at the critical apparatus of a Greek New Testament? Exactly which manuscript is inerrant? For the Old Testament, which manuscript tradition do we follow to find the one that is inerrant? Do we follow the apostles and the early church fathers in using the Septuagint? This is not to even deal with the issue of translation. This does not even address the lack of archaeological evidence. What was expressed by this gentleman was not a theological conviction. It is willful blindness to not even approach the other side of the question…
Michael, you are a patient man…
Josh,
We didn’t even discuss weightier matters than “who killed Goliath”.
The fact that there is little hard evidence for the Flood, the Exodus, the invasion of Canaan, and a host of other historical events ask huge questions…I haven’t settled all that out in my mind yet.
Duane,
I’m patient to a point…and we reached that point. 🙂
It would be wonderful to have an open discussion on the topic…I get so many inquiries privately from honest people asking honest questions who feel like they can’t ask out loud anywhere…
This is not exactly related to inerrancy, but sort of – my biggest struggle in reconstructing my faith has been that the quotes attributed to God in the Old Testament often times sound nothing like the God we see revealed in Jesus. In the world I grew up in, these questions were not allowed and to go down that thought process was full apostasy.
A couple of weeks ago I heard a sermon on the woman caught in adultery. The pastor didn’t make a point of it, but it was something I noticed for the first time.
When they brought the woman to Jesus, they said “According to the law of Moses, she should be stoned.”
Why didn’t Jesus just stone her? They were correct. Obviously, Jesus had problems with such a strict interpretation of the Old Testament too.
Josh,
That is probably the most frequently asked question I get on inerrancy.
The answer I have for the moment is that it is not Gods voice that is being heard…it’s the voice of the writers describing the God they want and what they want him to do.
It’s obviously a lot more detailed than that, but it rings true when considering the historical context and archeology and comparing the writing with that of other tribes at the time.
It’s a tad difficult to reconcile Jesus with “bashing babies heads against the rocks”…
And I think Jesus had trouble reconciling it as well, or he would have just said – yep, stone her.
My current view, which is rapidly changing, is that much of the Old Testament is the record of God’s relationship to Abraham and his decedents…from THEIR perspective. In whole, it gives us the most important truth: that Jesus came to be. There are things that are applicable, and things we can learn about God through their writings, but I’m thinking sometimes they were skewed in what they thgouht God was doing.
Josh,
I’m pretty much on the same track…
I remember a book on Revelation by the late Ray Stedman. The title of the book was God‘s Final Word to Man. I was pastoring in the Friends Church at that time. Many Quakers had a real problem with inerrancy. They believed in what they called The Inner Light. They believe God still speaks today and those words might be contradictory to what something in scripture says. I had a real problem with that at first, because I was going to a college that hammered home inerrancy. The older I get, the more convinced I am, that I might’ve had some things all wrong during those days in ministry.
There are times in New Testament passages where I struggle with what is doctrine opposed to culture.
As many of you know here at Phoenix Preacher, I had an opportunity two years ago to take a church in Oregon that called me to pastor. Thinking back I think it’s best that I stayed where I am because it would’ve been a real struggle for me to return to certain types of thinking that exist within evangelical Christianity.
Bob,
I think God invites us into those struggles…I know I’ve grown in faith since I’ve opened up to other possibilities.
I could no more pastor an evangelical church than fly…but I’m grateful for those who can.
The problem is not with the Bible, it’s with us. Hosea 14:9
Maybe – but who made me? So if a God made me to think this way, understand this way, or …not be able to understand this way, what can I do about it?
Just keep saying I believe inerrancy, even though I couldn’t possibly if I wanted to at this point?
And for the record, I don’t see it as a problem with the bible or with me. Its not a problem at all, in and of itself. Its just the reality of the way things are and I am getting more and more OK with living within that reality.
Again, my only other option is to abandon the faith.
“It’s not a problem at all, in and of itself. It’s just the reality of the way things are and I am getting more and more OK with living within that reality.”
Bingo!
All we’re really doing is learning how to relate to the Scriptures…because the way we were taught simply doesn’t hold water.
For me, its been pretty amazing how real faith has grown and deepened when I don’t have to defend the Bible…just let it form me through the ethos of Jesus.
How can the human author err if he has been inspired by the Holy Spirit?
“All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, and for training in righteousness.”
Where is there room for “not all” or “some or all” is useful…. Surely erroneous parts would not be useful…, much less God breathed.
If one subscribes to the notion that there are errors, how does one decide which parts are error and which parts are truth? Is each man or synod or denomination his own magisterium?
For those of us who hold to inerrancy (and one could Google “The Chicago Statement” for a definition), it is not based on fear, ignorance, naivete, lack of study, brainwashing, or any other pejorative.
We don’t have to agree on everything, but respect can be mutual nonetheless.
In my experience, most of the time when someone says “that’s an error” or “that is a time restricted tradition” or “that word doesn’t mean what it plainly says, but something else” what I observe is the reader simply doesn’t like or agree with the text. Either it disagrees with his human reason or it disagrees with his human morals.
Hold it as long as you can. The letting go was harrowing.
But for those of you who can no longer hold to innerancy, know that there is faith still for you. God is still good. Jesus is still on the throne.
I will say that I no longer see my human reasoning or human morals as the enemy.
Jean,
There are lots of examples I could post here of errors, contradictions, etc.
There are huge scientific, historical, and archeological issues.
There are well known differences in the manuscripts we do have…and multiple different translations that differ from each other.
I am not upset over the text…the texts that I believe are God breathed are difficult enough for me to live.
Choosing to ignore the evidence and the questions around the text is fine for some who need certainty about everything… or those who just don’t care and have their hands full living out their faith.
I don’t need textual certainty…I’m certain about Jesus.
I can’t unsee what I’ve seen or pretend that these questions don’t exist…nor would I want to.
My faith doesn’t rely on an inerrant Bible, but a merciful and gracious Lord.
Josh,
God gave us brains for reasoning and wrote His law on our hearts for morals…we should pay attention both and demonize neither…
Now, I will add this to the conversation.
I don’t belabor my congregation with this kind of information.
They are all older and have been raised up with inerrancy and such discussions are utterly irrelevant to them.
I have no desire to shake people up just to do so…
“The fact that there is little hard evidence for the Flood, the Exodus, the invasion of Canaan, and a host of other historical events ask huge questions…”
Among the “host of other historical events,” there is no hard evidence of the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ.
The Christian religion was never an evidence based religion but a faith based religion.
It is a faith obtained through the ears.
I wouldn’t expect much archeological evidence of a poor girl having a baby 2000 years ago. A worldwide flood should leave some evidence.
Josh beat me to it.
Historical events leave historical markers geologically and in archeology.
Supernatural ones generally do not…
“For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea; and they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased; for their dead bodies were spread out in the wilderness. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they indeed craved them.”
Paul evidently believed there was an exodus and that it was theologically important.
Was Paul in error? If so, how do we know if Paul was correct about anything he wrote?
Jean,
There is no doubt that these stories in general and the Exodus in particular were part of the Jews narrative of their own history.
I’m more than open that something happened, but on a lesser scale than recorded.
Two million people in the desert for 40 years would leave tons of artifacts that they were there…we don’t have any.
Now, the story itself has theological implications…which may be what God was communicating to us.
It would not trouble me in the least if we were to find corroborating evidence for any of these stories…nor would it change anything about my theology.
There are more kinds of truth than historical or scientifically verifiable truth. The lesson of the story can be 100% true even if the historical event never happened. (I am not saying that the exodus never happened.) So, Paul referencing an origin story of his people to make a theological point can still be 100% true, even if the origin story were inaccurate. (I am not necessarily saying the origin story is inaccurate.)
It seems a wild burden of proof to expect Paul to have to know, with full accuracy, all of history and science to be able to trust him on any point. We don’t hold anything else to that kind of truth standard. All of our history and science books have flaws, yet that doesn’t mean we have to question George Washington’s existence.
That said, I do hold Paul’s letters below the gospels. I think there is missing context in lots of places, perhaps chains of letters to and from Paul that we are missing that would fill in some gaps, and cultural things that were never meant to be eternal laws.
Well said Josh.
Which is why I take Paul’s writings with only a few grains of salt.
Josh,
I echo Muff…well said.
I’m very glad we’re able to have this discussion…it’s critical to the future of the faith.
“It seems a wild burden of proof to expect Paul to have to know, with full accuracy, all of history and science to be able to trust him on any point. We don’t hold anything else to that kind of truth standard. All of our history and science books have flaws, yet that doesn’t mean we have to question George Washington’s existence.”
This might have some validity were the Bible just another book. The claims made inside the Bible are that this particular book is God breathed, that the authors were guided by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote.
Speaking on behalf of those who hold to inerrancy: We don’t wonder what history or science Paul learned in school; that is irrelevant, if what he wrote is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We trust him because he wrote as Christ’s apostle.
For Christians, who hold to inerrancy, the Bible is unique. It is one of one. It has a unique truth standard. We believe that the Bible is the word of God and that Christ is the Word of God. The words that it speaks are truth. This truth is the rock that Jesus refers to towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount that provides a solid foundation for faith when the storms of life batter one’s faith.
It is interesting, edifying to me, and gives me hope that I can have a fuller faith again in the future.
Last comment was in response to Michael – I also appreciate the conversation. Jean popped in before me 🙂
Jean,
If ignoring science, history, and data are required to maintain your faith, then go for it.
This generation and the generations to come are not going to shut off their brains…nor do they have to.
I hope to leave them reasons for faith in Jesus, not the text.
Josh,
In my personal and private ministry I have seen a lot of folks come back to faith using a similar trajectory as you are.
Start with Jesus and work out from there….and ignore all the people who claim Jesus while acting like hell.
I believed in inerrancy for most of my Christian life.
Long time readers will remember that my beloved mentor and hero of the faith J.I. Packer literally wrote the book on the subject.
When I actually read and studied the works of those involved in higher criticism and those in the sciences, I realized that they weren’t trying to destroy the faith, they were just doing what people in those fields do…research.
I had to be honest about a whole lot of stuff and it was neither easy, nor painless.
I spend no time anymore defending the Bible…it doesn’t need defending when rightly understood…though it would take forever to rightly understand it all.
My job isn’t to persuade Jean and others…my hope is in strengthening brothers like Josh and all the people his age that the church has betrayed in numerous ways…and despite that, they still seek Jesus.
If one is going to argue inerrancy, one can only argue they were only inerrant in the original manuscripts to begin with. Which of course brings in the whole study of textual transmission and textual criticism. Also, people need to realize that the Bible is not a textbook on physics, geology, astronomy, biology, archeology, mathematics, etc (despite what the YEC crowd may say). Same goes with history (though historical events are mentioned and discussed). In fact, the Bible limits itself as to its role and expertise, via 2 Timothy 3:16. Whether the flood or the Exodus happened is immaterial to the purpose and scope of Scriptures. Seems to me these inerrancy proponents’ faith and God is rather small and brittle. Ask them how and why EXACTLY does believing in YEC, the Flood (or not) help you become more Christlike?
“If ignoring science, history, and data are required to maintain your faith, then go for it.”
That’s a mischaracterization. My point is that “we walk by faith, not by sight.” Science and history are two disciplines related to natural revelation. Scripture is related to divine or special revelation. Science and history change all the time, are often inconsistent, and carry the biases of the practitioners. It’s fine if the two types of revelation align on certain matters or from time to time. But whereas the Bible is not a science book, a science book is not a theology book. They are two separate lanes. And for those of us who hold to inerrancy, we resolve discrepancies in favor of the Bible, which is inspired by God almighty.
“This generation and the generations to come are not going to shut off their brains…nor do they have to.”
Theologians and Christians who hold to inerrancy certainly do not shut off their brains. As we have recently witnessed with the Covid situation, its origins, the safety of the vaccines, etc., one could accuse those who blindly follow so-called experts in science and history as perhaps parking there brains at the station.
If you just look at the last 50 years of science in this country, telling us what is healthy to eat, how to treat illness, what foods and chemicals are safe, etc., and now look at the health and environment of America? The whole enterprise is totally corrupt.
Look at what the state of higher education in America is? The leftist ideology is so persuasive that I wouldn’t trust much of what is being produced in the name of history.
Even if we agree that science and history are important (and I think we do), (1) where can we find competent, unbiased, trustworthy sources? and (2) I place the Bible above (1) because it (a) is the word of God and (b) it holds words for eternal life.
One can also ask these inerrancy folks if their faith would be shattered if they found out that Mark 16:9 – 20 was not in the original manuscript.
R’as al Ghul,
You show once again that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Michael,
The virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are scientifically unverifiable and scientifically impossible. The Bible deals with the supernatural. It takes faith to believe in Christ over and against human reason and human wisdom.
I am hesitant to answer Jean, because I don’t blame someone for believing in inerrancy. Like I said earlier, having to let it go was the roughest time of my life (and I’ve experienced some pretty rough times.) In the spirit of enjoying the conversation, and allowing Jean the opportunity to strengthen his convictions while I also become more convinced of my own, I will ask a couple of obvious questions:
“This might have some validity were the Bible just another book.”
I don’t think the bible is just another book. I feel like the story is too good to be entirely human. Something about the bible seems supernatural to me. Think about it – if none of it is historical truth (not my stance), but just a bunch of brilliant metaphorical stories that weave together to tell one brilliant story about all of history – spread across dozens of authors and 100’s of years – Isn’t that even more amazing?
” We don’t wonder what history or science Paul learned in school;”
Then you expect Paul to give answers to questions he was never asked. By this approach, you will absolutely get wrong answers, because the biblical writers weren’t intending to write in a way that would answer every random question a person might bring up. So if you blindly trust Paul’s history, even though Paul himself never made any claim on historical expertise, you are sure to end up with some wrong answers. If you look for the truth in Paul’s writing, that divine spark if you will, you will find it,even if he wasn’t an expert on history or science,
“The claims made inside the Bible are that this particular book is God breathed”
This is a faith statement, faith in the bible, not a statement of fact. None of the verses that claim biblical inspiration give any sort of scope on what that actually covers. There is no claim in the bible that the 66 books of the protestant cannon are all equally inspired. In fact, there is no author in the bible that even knew of all 66 books of the protestant cannon at the time of his writing, so he couldn’t have been including all of them.
I do believe the bible is a unique book. That said:
“We believe that the Bible is the word of God and that Christ is the Word of God. ”
You would have to define what the bible is. Why the 66 books and not others? When did This written collection become God’s word? At the finalization of the cannon?
I would assert that Jesus is the word of God, and could back that up with ample scripture.
Jean,
I have not argued against the supernatural.
I fully hold to the early creeds and confessions of the church and believe in the virgin birth, resurrection, etc…
As has already been noted, most historical events leave a trail…and events as monumental as a global flood and the Exodus would leave significant evidence.
I won’t address your political babbling…
Believing in inerrancy isn’t stopping you from ignoring virtually the entire Sermon on the Mount to support a cruel tyrant and his minions.
I’ll stick with the matter at hand…
Josh,
You’re on a roll…well said.
“Believing in inerrancy isn’t stopping you from ignoring virtually the entire Sermon on the Mount to support a cruel tyrant and his minions.”
No it hasn’t. At least I know who is running the Executive Branch. I think responsibility for my support really falls on the Democratic Party, who offered no competent alternative. However, I do like a lot of what I’m currently seeing from the administration, while being disappointed about some other things it is doing.
I like the inerrancy conversation. I hope we can avoid going too deep into current American politics.
Josh,
Ditto!
Definitely was worth a visit to Proverbs 3 to help me with a new start today. Respectfully yours with love and truth in Christ to all, JD.
Perhaps that is for another article.
One of the things that made it easier to let go of inerrancy was that those who most fiercely defended it were often some of the worst humans imaginable from a spiritual perspective.
If I were Josh’s age or younger I’m not sure I would have made it through in faith to my age now.
Anyway…back to the topic.
I can’t think of a single doctrinal issue that I’ve changed my mind about since losing inerrancy.
On the contrary, it’s made me take the sayings of Jesus a lot more seriously.
Inerrantists flatten out the text and it’s all the “word of God”…no it’s not, not in equal importance or veracity…
JD,
Proverbs 3: 1-6 is my “life verse”…
Josh,
” We don’t wonder what history or science Paul learned in school;”
“Then you expect Paul to give answers to questions he was never asked. By this approach, you will absolutely get wrong answers, because the biblical writers weren’t intending to write in a way that would answer every random question a person might bring up. So if you blindly trust Paul’s history, even though Paul himself never made any claim on historical expertise, you are sure to end up with some wrong answers.”
I’m not looking to Paul for answers to history. I referenced 1st Corinthians because (a) Paul reviews the OT story of the Exodus, which he evidently believes is true, because it is in the Scriptures that he believed were authoritative and reliable, and (b) Paul, being an apostle of Christ, added authentication of the story and relevance for Christians. The way he used it, it appears to me that there was wide agreement in what Moses did and now he uses the story as a typology for the greater work of Christ.
As Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. If the story of the exodus and other stories in the law and the prophets are just fiction, then what is Jesus actually fulfilling? Are his fulfillments then just fiction? I think not!
I don’t think the Exodus was made up out of whole cloth.
I think something happened that was amplified by the writers of the time to explain the Jewish history and narrative.
What Josh said about different kinds of “true” was right on…I understand Genesis 1-2 are creation myths that tell us about the Creator and human spiritual anthropology…they are “true” without necessarily being historic events.
One can ask irerrantists how important Ezra 1:7-11 in their walk with Jesus and becoming more Christlike
And Jean does not know what he is talking about when it comes economics, trade, and other things. Hopefully you at least know what habeas corpus means and understand the Trump cannot suspend it (despite what they say about the invasion clause). Three guesses as to why.
R’as al Ghul,
We’re going to honor the desire to leave politics alone in this thread.
I believe the exodus happened pretty much according to the biblical record.
However, it is not necessary for making Paul’s point.
“The way he used it, it appears to me that there was wide agreement in what Moses did and now he uses the story as a typology for the greater work of Christ.”
Exactly – Paul’s point was to take a story that his readers knew, and point out the greater work – Greater! – work of Christ. To assume that this validates every claim of the OT narrative is to miss Paul’s point entirely, and major on the minors.
R’as does know what he’s talking about and shouldn’t have been dismissed so wantonly earlier.
His point about the longer ending of Mark makes a great point about textual variants.
Is the bible the word of God? So, is Mark 16:9-20 the word of God?
The only person who can answer that with any confidence is a KJV only guy. For them, KJV is the word of God. A ludicrous proposition, but it answers the Mark variant question.
So if that part is not the word of God, how do we know other included parts are also outside the word of God? And if there are variants that we are unsure if they are in or out, maybe there are other writings that should have also been included?
Josh,
I don’t think the Markan passage is scripture…because I hate snakes…
Josh,
“His point about the longer ending of Mark makes a great point about textual variants.”
We are not discussing textual variants. That’s why I dismissed it. Christians who believe in inerrancy do not deny there are textual variants.
Yes there are textual variants and yes inerrancy applies to the original autographs only. There is plenty of Scripture to work with where there are not substantive variants.
To discuss inerrancy, one must discuss textual variants. So you are admitting that some of what you hold in your hand as the bible is not, or may not be the word of God. That seems a slippery slope, no? How can you know for sure which verses are and which are not?
So, this applies to the original autographs. Its a hypothetical argument. IF we had the original arguments, then they would be inerrant. Maybe. But we don’t have them. We have never had them together in one grouping of something called “the bible”. We have always been dealing with copies of copies.
Josh,
Textual variants might be a slippery slope, if there were lots of material variants on points of Christian doctrine, but there are not. In fact, I’m not aware of any Christian doctrine that hinges on a variant. So, it’s not a slippery slope.
snake handling does 🙂
The slippery slope is that some of what you call the bible is admittedly not the word of God. In fact, The thing that you are calling the Word of God, you could not possible possess (original autographs).
So again, its just a faith statement about something we don’t have and have never seen. But if we did see it…it would certainly be perfect.
I’m OK with you and anyone else believing that, but it couldn’t possibly be a requirement for belonging to the family of God. (To be clear, you haven’t argued that here, but that is my upbringing.)
“I’m OK with you and anyone else believing that, but it couldn’t possibly be a requirement for belonging to the family of God. (To be clear, you haven’t argued that here, but that is my upbringing.)”
Yep.
Doesn’t matter to me one way or another until it’s a place of division.
Jean,
What do you believe is at stake in this discussion?
Josh,
Well said, Jesus is the Word.
Jesus says the infallible word of God.
Is the infallible word of God.
What I believe is at stake is faith, hope and love.
Doubt and faith are in polarity to one another. The disciples asked Jesus to “increase our faith.” The father asked Jesus to “help my unbelief.” Jesus said “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” Doubt is no where lauded in the Bible. That’s not to say, Christians do not harbor some doubts, but doubt is not a resting place or destination.
I want increased faith; I want to build my life on the rock of Christ. I want God to preserve me in the faith until his return or my death. Therefore, for me I submit to the teachings of the Bible as special revelation from God.
The stakes are high. I hope no one here ends up shipwrecking their faith like Bart Ehrman has done. I hope no church becomes an ally of Satan as the ELCA has done. These former Christian and Church body left God’s people when they stopped treating the Bible as the word of God.
I don’t know where the threshold for saving faith resides. I only know that I do not want to get near it. The stakes are high.
Jean,
My faith is in Jesus…and it has never been stronger.
I pray that people understand that the only object of our faith is Christ and He is faithful.
You don’t need an inerrant text to have a relationship with Jesus.
Bob Sweat,
I’ll say the amen…
I was just thinking about some more as I was taking a break with Liam the Cat.
This may fall under the category of “weaker brothers” with errancy substituted for meat sacrificed to idols.
We don’t want to try anyones faith…we just want to grow and affirm the faith of folks who don’t hold to the doctrine.