Please note, there is quite a bit of misunderstanding about what I am trying to say in this post. I have written a very illustrative post to help clarify some of this. It can be found here. So if you are thinking about coming to hang me, please read the follow-up first to make sure you don’t tie the noose for nothing.
I realize that posts such as these have the potential to create quite a bit of heat and get me in a lot of trouble. As well, I don’t really want to be seen as one who is always trying to unsettle things. I like to be settled, and in a very pastoral way, I like to settle others. However, in Christianity, both for our personal faith and our public witness, we need to speak with the emphasis necessary to carry our faith truly. It is my argument that often – far too often – conservative Christians become identified with issues that, while important, do not make or break our faith. This creates extremely volatile situations (from a human perspective) as believers’ faith ends up having a foundation which consists of one of these non-foundational issues. When and if these issues are significantly challenged, our faith becomes unstable. I have seen too many people who walk away from the faith due to their trust in some non-essential issue coming unglued. That is why I write this post. Whether you agree with me or not, I hope this discussion will cause you to think deeply about what issues create the bedrock of our (and your) faith.
Here is a list of what I believe to be eight issues that do not make or break our faith:
1 . Young Earth Creationism
There are many people who spend an enormous amount of money holding seminars, building museums, and creating curricula attempting to educate people on the importance and evidence for a six-thousand (give or take) year-old earth. There is certainly nothing wrong (in my opinion) with holding to and defending such a view. The problem comes when those who hold to this view teach that to deny a literal six-day creation is to deny the Gospel (or close to it). There is simply no sustainable reason to believe that one’s interpretation about the early chapters of Genesis determines his or her status before God.
2. The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles
This is an interesting one. I suppose that the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are among the most controversial books in the Bible with respect to their authorship. For various reasons, many do not believe that Paul wrote these letters. While I do believe a sustained argument can and should be made for the inclusion of these in the canon, whether or not Paul wrote these letters does not affect the truthfulness of the Christian faith. While these letters are extremely valuable for issues of personal integrity and ecclesiology, the essence of the Christian faith remains intact without them. This goes for 2 Peter as well – by far the most contested book in the New Testament. William Barclay, author of the Daily Bible Study Series (as far as I know, still the best selling commentary set of all time), did not accept Petrine authorship of Second Peter. While I disagree (like Calvin, I believe that Peter was behind the letter, though he did not directly write it) this did not in any way disqualify Barclay from being a Christian and a committed servant of God.
3. The inerrancy of Scripture
This is a tough one. It is not tough because I have my doubts about it. It is tough because I know how important the doctrine of inerrancy is to so many of my friends and heroes of the faith. Many people believe that a denial of inerrancy (the belief that the Bible is without any errors in the original manuscripts – not the translations!) amounts to a denial of the faith. However, this is nearly impossible to defend. While I believe in and strongly defend the doctrine of inerrancy, a denial of this doctrine is not a test of one’s status before God. I might even go further and say that even if the Bible does have some historical or scientific inaccuracies, this does not mean that Christianity is false. Christianity is based on the historicity of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, not whether or not its chroniclers messed up on a detail or two. All biographers and writers of history err, but this does not mean that we discount their value or discredit their entire testimony. The classic illustration of this is the sinking of the Titanic. When we look to the historical records, we find that the eyewitnesses who survived that night were divided as to how the Titanic went down. Half said it broke in two and went down, while the other half said it went down intact. Someone is wrong. However, no historian would say that the Titanic must not have gone down at all simply because there is a discrepancy in the details.
Ironically, this is exactly what happens to many who study the Bible. Charles Darwin tells about how his faith was initially dislodged due to discrepancies in the Scriptures. Bart Ehrman goes in the same direction. But, like with the Titanic, just because one may be convinced that one author disagrees with another about some details, this does not mean that both authors are wrong or that the main events (Christ’s birth, teaching, sinless life, death on a cross, resurrection, etc.) did not happen. This is about the last thing that the historian would suppose. Therefore, while I believe in the doctrine of inerrancy, it does not make or break Christianity.
4. Whether the flood covered entire earth
This is not unlike the previous entry about Young Earth creationism. There is quite a bit of debate about the “global” flood described in Genesis 6. Some believe that the entire earth was covered with water. Others believe it was a local flood, isolated in Mesopotamia. Some even believe that the whole event did not really take place and is not meant to be taken literally. These believe that the story itself is a polemic against other gods and other flood stories, essentially saying in a parabolic way that God is in charge, not your other gods. Whichever view one takes, this does not affect Christianity. If we were somehow able to prove that a flood was or was not global, this neither adds to nor takes away from the truthfulness of Christianity.
5. The character witness of Christians
I have spoken about this before, but it is important to realize that Christianity is not dependent on the character witness of its followers. Many claim to reject Christianity because of the character of the Christians they know. Whether it is the Crusades, the Inquisition, evil Popes, or the hypocrisy of people in their local church, building a foundation of faith upon the character witness of sinners is not only a mistake, but leads to an ill-founded faith. Christianity’s truthfulness has nothing to do with how Christians act. It is about the historical event of the resurrection of Christ. Ghandi’s statement, “If it weren’t for Christians, I’d be a Christian” is simply not true. One does not become a Christian by trusting in the character of Christians; one becomes a Christian by trusting in Christ. Of course, a Christian’s witness (i.e., gaining an audience) is tied to their character, but Christ’s reality is not dependent on our witness.
6. The inspiration of Scripture
This is connected to inerrancy, but takes it a step further just for the sake of getting me in hotter water! My statement is this: the Bible does not have to be inspired for Christianity to be true. Before you jump all over me, think of it this way: Did God have to give us the Bible in order to be God? Of course not. If he never gave us any written testimony of himself, he would still be God. There was nothing that obligated God to this form of revelation (or any form at all!). Christ could have come and lived a perfect life, gained representation, died on the cross, rose from the grave, and never had it recorded in the Scriptures. How would we know about the Gospel? I don’t know. Maybe angels, maybe word of mouth, maybe direct revelation, or maybe not at all. The point is that God did not have to inspire any books in order for him to be who he is and do what he did. The Bible does not make Christianity true; the Bible simply records true Christianity through inspired words and thoughts.
7. The unity of Christianity
Many people stress quite a bit about the unity of the church. While I understand why this is important, the unity of the church is not a test to the truthfulness of the cross. There are thousands of denominations and many traditions within the Christian faith. It is important to note that all of orthodox Christianity has always been united on many things. There is a certain perspicuity (clarity) to the Scripture which has brought about this universal unity. We call this the regula fide or the canon veritas. It is simply an expression of orthodox belief, arguing that there are certain beliefs shared by all Christians, everywhere, at every point in history. There are too many things to list, but in essence we all agree on the person and work of Christ. But there are also many things that Christians disagree about. Historically, many of these things have been called the adiaphora or “things indifferent.” Many act as if this disunity in the church somehow warrants disbelief in Christ. However, like the others, the unity of the church is not the foundation of the Church. The cross and the resurrection are.
8. The theory of evolution
Unfortunately, many Christians believe that the theory of evolution is somehow an anti-Christian theory invented by Satan to destroy Christianity. Many believe that if evolution is true, Christianity is not. This is not true. While I don’t accept the theory of evolution, there is no reason that God could not have used some sort of evolutionary process to create the world. Yes, it will take some reworking of one’s interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, but, as many good Christians have demonstrated, it is very possible to be a Christian evolutionist. Evolution is not a make or break issue for Christianity.
(I had two more that may have gotten me burned at the stake. Luckily I have run past my per-post character limit!)
I hope you understand the spirit of this post. In the end, my argument is that our focus should be on the person and work of Christ. In essence, if the resurrection of Christ happened, Christianity is true. If it did not, Christianity is not true. This is why I call myself a “resurrection apologist.” When I am defending my faith to myself and others, ninety-nine percent of the time, this is where I camp. It is not that these other issues are not important or worthy of debate and discussion. It is not as if these other issues don’t have implications. However, none of them make or break our faith. Therefore, we should adjust our thinking and our witness accordingly.
I am comforted to know that I am not really saying something too original here. Paul seems to whistle the same tune.
1 Cor. 15:1
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
If this creates some conversation, please let the rules of this blog guide you.
214 replies to "Eight Issues that Do NOT Make or Break Christianity"
@Dave Z
Lets imagine that all we had was Luke’s Gospel and whatever you said was the case. If I were an unbeliever why should Luke’s Gospel be any different for me than the Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Thomas which are totally written by Gnostics, who are now considered heretics. Luke’s Gospel wouldn’t even have made it among all the other gospels if it were not divinely inspired. The Bible stands out because its has been divinely inspired! If the Bible were not divinely inspired and sustained by God, why shouldn’t have God let it be destroyed several times when empires tried to destroy it. The reason we have the faith we have today is because men whom God raised chose to believe that God’s word was true even when the whole world did not do so. So the anwer to your question is if Luke were not divinely inspired, we would not even have Christianity today! These men have all died, but all that remains is the inspired word!
If scripture were not inspired the only Christians who would be present would be people who research the truth of the Gospels. However that is not how 90% of people become Christians, if you and I are believers it is only because God actively sought us when we were sinners. And our faith is not the result of our finding that the Gospels are true. Our faith is a result of the Holy Spirit’s work in us to reveal that God’s word is true and it is the sharp two edged sword of God’s word which has convicted us of our sins.
So the Bible is not powerful because it contains man’s interpretation of Jesus’ work, but the Bible is powerful and stands out because its is God’s revelation of himself, and because it is the message which he has given us. The bible itself claims to be divinely inspired (2 Tim 3:16) and hence even going to the argument wondering if we would have had faith were the Bible not divinely inspired or if the bible were different is just going into unnecessary speculation.
I think when Jesus gave the command to lift up the bread and wine to declare his death until he returns he gave us a clear sign that his death is important. This is the blood of the new covenenant, without which we have no “sola fide” in Christ. Jesus taught other things about the OT, such as creation in six days, etc., which we might accept as independent verification of the veracity of these writings.
If all one ever heard was the Gospel, with the proper amount of history for it to make sense, would that person be denied salvation for not knowing the whole of scriptures? I think not. You don’t even need to read and write to know God loves you and died for you.
@C Barton . Someone does not need to know how to read or write to be saved, but that someone cannot deny the truth of the scriptures and be saved.
And the fact that you are using an incident from scripture to put forth your very argument shows why you have to believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures if you are to defend the true faith.
Michael:
Just curious, do they 2 you’re not revealing deal with Christology? Just curious. Thanks.
No. They are two of the solas. 🙂
And that is as far as I will go. 😛
Paul T writes:
If you were an unbeliever, why would the doctrine of inspiration mean anything to you?
Exactly! the doctrine of inspiration is nothing for unbelievers, in fact nothing about scripture makes sense to an unbeliever, so just because something does not make sense to an unbeliever it is not reason to reject it. But the fact that reading scripture can change an unbeliever is the reason to believe that it is inspired! Otherwise why would so many lives be changed by the scripture, when so many other things they have read have resulted in no change?
I think Steve nailed it as well.
“But then those who must add something to the finished work of Christ on the Cross (such as Popes, historic episcopacy, inerrant Bibles, good works, feelings of being saved, etc.)…really aren’t free. Almost, maybe…but not quite there.”
This expresses so much of what we do in nuanced ways to try to add to the Gospel.
Michael,
Would a presuppositionalist agree with these points, especially point 3? If not, how would you argue against his perspective?
Thanks,
Caleb
Though this is a minimum, we do not have to live with this minimum. We can go beyond the milk of the gospel and make conclusions to make up a systematic theology. It is consistent with the Bible that God has continued to reveal himself more fully through the ages. That is why I have a high view of scripture so that I can learn more of God.
Rob.
Rob, far from being a minimum, this is our Troy Aikman to Michael Irving. The rest are play for when we are up 77-0.
#9) Dispensationalism
Can we throw that one in too?
A presup would not put things this way as evidence is not an issue as it is here. I would not necessarily argue against the presup argument as I would first have to show that presup itself is illegit. But I think presup is fine so long as it only forms the theological backdrop to your thinking. This way, it is only an ambient philosophy that can be carried along with my “resurrection apologetics.”
So many replies that demand a response but I will limit myself to 4. @ #16– Jesus did not separate Genesis from the Gospels. In fact in John 5:45-47 he made a point about how can you believe his words if you do not believe Moses’ words.
if you doubt the global flood how can you believe Jesus when he says he is the way the truth and the life? The points above, seem to lead towards cherry picking what you want to believe and rejecting those passages the secular world hates.
@#21 We focus on the truth. We do not have the authority to say God did say this and he did not say that. We are not to edit the word of God nor its message. Jesus didn’t so why do some think they can? Doesn’t matter if they are atheist or not, they need to hear the truth and they need to see people actually believe what they say they believe.
@31 Minor points are major when it comes to the Bible. We cannot say God spoke the truth here in this passage but lied over there n another. Genesis 2:1 says that creation was complete thus there can be no ongoing process in existence. 2 Peter 3:5 says at God’s word everything was created, supporting Hebrews 11:1-3 and Genesis 1. We are not fighting a useless battle over origins, we are fighting false teaching with the truth. Evolution is a lie.
@#33 There are no real issues that make or break the Gospels unless one lies about the Bible and God or they cherry pick what they want to believe. We stick to the truth as Jesus said to do ‘ the world can do nothing against the truth’ and it is the truth we are to speak. We do not change the message to appease those who do not believe in hopes of winning their souls. We don’t win their souls by giving them a false message.
You know, Michael, regarding point 2, the authorship of the pastorals (and 2 Peter), it would bug me a lot if Paul and Peter were not somehow directly responsible for those letters, even if they did not personally write them. If they are unrelated to the apostles, the fact that the author (forger) used their names destroys the credibility of the contents, IMO. If the guy starts off by lying…
If I were convinced they were later forgeries, I’d stop using them. And in losing them, we’d lose a couple of the biggest “inerrancy” support scriptures.
Still, I don’t guess it’s a make or break issue. The rest of scripture is still overflowing with the gospel.
All,
Dave said concerning the pastorals that is would be problematic and discouraging to say the least if these were forgeries. However Dave nailed it:
“Still, I don’t guess it’s a make or break issue. The rest of scripture is still overflowing with the gospel.”
This post is not meant to instigate or express doubt in any of these issues. It is a philosophical/theological exercise in prolegomena. Yes, all of these issues have implications. But (and here is my point) none of the implications discredit the cornerstone of our faith, the resurrection of Christ.
What does this mean? In our apologetics we shouldn’t be taking too much time trying to defend inerrancy or a literal creation, as those things do not make or break the faith, but we go straight to the resurrection. That is not to say that there won’t be legitimate hang ups that we need to deal with here and there in other areas, we just want to make sure that these only serve as stepping stones to more central issues.
It’s the Pauline Authorship of the Pastorals for me! This major to my mind! And though I may not be able to explain it fully, also the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture!
And oh yes, always “Dispensationalism”, though I am Progressive here. The Salvation History and Covenant/covenants of God are first Jewish, Rom. 15: 8, etc.
And yes, 2 Peter is “Peter’s” to my mind also. But then hey the case for pseudomymity has never been convincing to my mind.
I think I can say with at least a modicum of authority that presuppositionalists would be aghast at several items on this list. I know I am.
I think Michael sees the repercussions here, if not in full, given his previous comment. If taken to the logical conclusion, it’s a denial of all 5 Solas. Without inspiration, for example, there is an explicit denial of Sola Scriptura, no object for Fides, no authority for the knowledge of or work by Christus, no means of Gratia, and an explicit denial of Deo Gloria, as the Scripture is Theopneustos.
The errant or inerrant gospel? The inspired or uninspired gospel? The errant or inerrant account of the resurrection? The inspired or the uninspired account of the resurrection?
I submit that the difference DOES make or break the faith – because it’s faith according to the Scriptures – as they themselves attest to frequently. Whether the Scriptures are theopneustos is itself a make or break issue – because the entire subject of the Reformation revolved around two issues: One, according to Calvin, the sufficiency of Scripture – which is not a negotiable – this requires inerrancy as well as inspiration. First, does God err when speaking? Second, is this God speaking? The answer to those two defines whether or not you’re a Christian. You cannot say that God errs, or does not speak, and claim to be His child. Two, the bondage of the will – according to Luther, who obviously carries some weight when discussing what the Reformation was *about*. Obviously, #2 depends on #1. Theology matters, and it matters far more than this article presents.
Razors,
Did you know that CS Lewis rejected inerrancy yet still believed as much as anyone I have ever known in Christ? Do you think his faith was false?
FF Bruce rejected inerrancy. So does Roger Olson, I Howard Marshall, and NT Wright. And even when you get deeper into the issue like the ipsimma verba/ipsissima cox debate, you have about half to the inerrantist crew claiming that the other half don’t really hold to the doctrine. Why? Because people like me (ipsissima cox) beleive that many/most of the words of Jesus that have been recorded are redacted summaries, not technically precise. So, you may not think I hold to inerrancy either.
Does that help?
Why should we trust them to be true? On what grounds are we believing the events recorded are truthful?
And if they are not inerrant, then how do we know that Christ really rose from the grave? What keeps those passages from being in error? Why should we believe that over and above anything else recorded?
And if it is not inspired, then on what authority does it have over our lives? By whose words are we living?
As far as other methods God could have used to communicate His truth, sure He could have done anything He wished. He could have sent macrame owls to our doorstep to communicate the Gospel through interpretive dance, but He didn’t. He revealed himself through Scripture.
That being the case we should take it seriously and hold it in the highest regard. We should certainly recognize it as inspired, inerrant and subsequently the Author/authors of it as infallible.
Do you think I am arguing against inerrancy or inspiration? If so, we need to back up and reestablish that this is not what this post is about and I do believe in both. It is about whether inspiration and inerrancy are required in a recording document in order for the event recorded to be 1) true and 2) worthy of belief.
The first is really what this post argues for. We don’t have to have an inspired Bible for the Gospel to be true. The Gospel is true due to its own merits of historicity.
The second is an epistemological issue of warrant. Here as well we don’t NECESSARILY have to have an inspired inerrant record of the central events of the Gospel for belief to be warranted. Do you require infallibility of other authors of history before you believe them? Can a historical event be reliable without inerrant records? Do you have your doubts about the Holocaust since the records, both living and dead, are not inspired? Do you really believe the Black Death happened? Do you really believe the battle of Tours happened? If so, why?
Is this my Carrie???? It can’t be.
This is B&H. You never had a problem with this oh my prized student. Or are you just causing trouble?
Michael, after reading more of your answers to others I see what you are saying.
The problem however is that if we are defending the resurrection, the issue of the evidence for it is called into question.
Apart from Scripture, what are our other sources that give detailed accounts of the Lord rising from the dead?
And if Scripture is our primary source yet its validity is called into question, an apologetic for the credibility of the Bible inevitably ensues.
At that point, the inerrant and inspired nature of Scripture has to be defended. Otherwise, we are essentially saying “well parts of it are true, you know the bit about Jesus rising from the grave, but other parts, not so much.”
It won’t jibe with the hostile atheist. And they will call out such sophistry.
Michael,
You’re brave..lol. I liked the article and agree with every point—and I am a conservative evangelical. Most points would be difficult to teach in my church though.
haha! No.
Prized student, and assistant, and friend, and the hamster in the Credo House wheel…
I am not in anyway seeking to cause a problem. I am really engaging you on this. We don’t really get to talk much like we used to when I was a student!
It is all clicking now. I am seeing where you are coming from. I am only pointing out the potential problems that can and will be encountered.
As far as inspiration and inerrancy, I do realize these things have a very broad meaning (in that they are not monolithic) so debates on what either of those entails can be problems in themselves.
Let me ask you this…
How do we say that the parts regarding the resurrection are true but the other parts may or may not be?
I think ultimately that is where I see a problem when we encounter scoffers.
(I promise I am not intentionally causing problems, and I am not even raising my voice -metaphorically speaking- we aren’t arguing Lordship salvation here. If we were then the gloves come off! :D)
When presenting evidence for the resurrection Carrie, it is best, especially in an apologetic context, not to speak of the Scripture as “Scripture” (i.e. a unified canon). In reality, the New Testament is just 27 separate first century documents that stand and fall on their own. From the standpoint of the resurrection and from the standpoint of historical value, they vary from book to book. Nevertheless, it is not one line of evidence, but many.
These do provide the bedrock of the testimony for the resurrection, but were they lost in time, there would still be enough evidence from other witnesses to warrant a belief in resurrection.
But your question requires a whole book as there are so many pieces of evidence that are all woven together (as all historical event of this nature are and should be).
1. Primary witness docs (Gospels)
2. Secondary witness docs (Paul’s writings, the rest of the “New Testament”, early church fathers, other historians, etc)
3. Cultural impact (does the event produce a response from culture sufficient to substantiate its claims—most historical events will not have this as the event is usually not too impactful)
4. Archeology (if relevant)
The thing that historians don’t bring into the evidential mix are contaminants such as philosophical and theological presuppositions.
I AM raising my voice!!! Ahhhhhh, Grrrrrr, Ahhhhhh!!!
Thanks Danny. First time commenting?
I get it.
If everyone else here who disagrees with Michael, could simply talk to him on the phone, you would all understand and not be in such disagreement with him. Sorry to rub it in though, but hey its the perks of working for the ministry. 😀
I have to get to bed now. I have a very long drive ahead of me starting in 6 hours.
Night. 🙂
The point of this post was not:
1. Let’s see what kind of heresies we can lace into the ministry.
2. Let’s strive to be just Christian enough to be acceptable. What can we drop?
3. Let’s kill inerrancy!
No. The point was:
1. What are central elements of Christianity?
2. See point 1.
But Michael, you forgot to mention the important non-central Gospel issue of the eternal destination of pets. That’ll be number ten.
In all seriousness: part of Michael’s point is that Christianity is not as weak as people think it is. Even if you treat the four canonical gospels as non-inspired but basically legit accounts, and even if you added in the sketchy rejected gospels, you would STILL have enough reason to be convinced of the truth of Christianity and the resurrection.
Everyone who is offended by this is dogmatically arguing that Christianity is weaker than it really is. Yes, all Scripture (including DCs) is God-breathed. That’s not the same as inerrant. Adam was God-breathed, and was he inerrant? Maybe not. A better parallel might be Jesus breathing on the apostles in John. I guess that means the apostles themselves were inspired always, even if inerrant seldom.
To the defenders of strict inerrancy, you’d agree that every other document in the world besides the Bible is not inspired or inerrant, right? But we still actually know, as facts, a lot of things about the world and about history that are not in the Bible, don’t we? All non-inerrant documents are not automatically false, it’s not a slippery slope toward denying all evidence about everything, but people do have to apply some critical thinking in how they evaluate the evidence.
Yes, some of the people who deny Biblical inerrancy say we can’t believe anything the Bible says about anything without some kind of external evidence, but that’s not the only position! I’d say those people are applying different criteria to the Bible than they do to other historical documents, and maybe have an axe to grind and aren’t being totally fair. (Perhaps the literalist inerrancy crowd has inspired this equal but opposite movement….)
Not to speak for everyone else too, but I think the main point of contention with your post is pretty clearly centered on inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. Whether or not the Bible is inerrant and inspired does not have bearing on whether the things in the Bible are objectively true and historically factual. If they are, they are, and I agree that we can have faith in Christ and not hold to inerrancy and inspiration.
But you have to wonder how we would know the Gospel to begin with if we can’t presuppose the truth of 2 Tim. 3:16 on Christianity. If God had used angels or word of mouth to convey the Gospel instead, how would the inerrancy/inspiration of that revelation be any less critical? If the Bible isn’t inerrant and inspired then it loses divine authority and is no more trustworthy than the writings of, say, Josephus, on the essentials as well as everything else it teaches.
You can also be saved and believe in evolution, an old earth and local flood, but ultimately we are responsible for what we learn. I am YEC and oppose ToE not because I think they’re essential issues but because I see that’s where the authority of inspired/inerrant scripture leads. Jesus’ statements in Mat.19:4, Mark 10:6, 13:9, Luke 11:49-51, and Paul’s in Rom.1:20 don’t try to teach science, but since what they teach puts the creation and activities of mankind in the same timeframe as the creation of the earth, this excludes the possibility of millions or billions of years of earth history or evolutionary ancestry before Adam. I conclude a global flood based on a similar line of reasoning from Gen. 6.
Again, those aren’t central doctrines, but if “all scripture is God breathed” then we can know that truth with confidence as well as “all scripture”, essential or non-. We can be saved without holding to Biblical inspiration and inerrancy, but that logic leads to us not really knowing the Gospel in order to preach it to ourselves or anyone else. That’s kind of a…
Amen, amen, amen.
“In the end our focus should be on the person and work of Christ.”
amen!!
Rom 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
“I have seen too many people who walk away from the faith due to their trust in some non-essential issue coming unglued. Many claim to reject Christianity because of the character of the Christians they know. Many act as if this disunity in the church somehow warrants disbelief in Christ.”
excuses aren’t they? this is why some walk away:
1 John 2: 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
“God did not have to inspire any books in order for him to be who he is and do what he did; the Bible simply records true Christianity through inspired words and thoughts.”
how kind and helpful though, necessary it seems, that God has let us in on how He is working- the Bible does more than simply record
2 Peter 13 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4 For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
Heb 4:12 For the WORD of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart;
2 Cor 5 17 if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the WORD of reconciliation.
I often think of Eve saying, as we all do , what’s the big deal-did God really say/mean….
2 Tim 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 21 no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Peter 3 5 it escapes their (mockers) notice that by the WORD of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 7 But by His WORD the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men;
…..some things are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
18 but we grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
I have two thoughts:
1. If a person does not believe “all scripture is given by God” how can we expect them to believe “he made him sin for us who knew no sin”?
2. Can a person be saved and still committ adultery? Yes, it is not to be preferred (stating the point mildly) and it is definately not something we should promote, and if they continue on after being informed and confronted, we should seriously call their faith into question.
I’ll let you make the connections.
reminded, forgot to include prayer for us all…
2 Cor 10:4 the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ; 1 Cor 2:16 for we have the mind of Christ.
I think I see a recurring theme in the comments of some who differ with the inspiration and inerrancy parts of the post. It’s a theme I detect in many discussions of this nature. It’s the assumption that the only way God speaks is through scripture. As if the written word is God’s only communication option.
I consider myself a “soft continuationist” but that’s not what I’m referring to here. I am not, not, not trying to put forth a continuationist argument.
I’m convinced that all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. I think it follows, naturally and scripturally, that God communicates directly to our spirits through his Spirit. It may be as subtle as the “still, small voice,” or that uneasy, cautionary feeling in our hearts when we’re about to do something we know we shouldn’t. It can also be more dramatic.
The point is that I think much of evangelicalism ignores the direct internal ministry of the Holy Spirit, focusing instead on scripture exclusively.
Take a look at the first half of Romans 8 and Paul’s emphasis on the Spirit. He says we’re led by the Spirit, controlled by the Spirit, the Spirit testifies to us, gives life to us. The Spirit helps us and intercedes for us. It’s by the Spirit that we put to death the deeds of the body.
I think we can lose the fear that if scripture is either not inspired or not inerrant that we have nothing to rely on. We have the source of scripture dwelling in us. The work that God is doing in us ultimately depends on God himself, not on us or on scripture. We can be confident that he who began a good work in us will carry it on to completion. We are neither the author or the perfecter/finisher of our faith.
Sometimes I think we make the same mistake Jesus tried to correct in John 5:39 when he said “you think that in the scriptures you have eternal life…”
Dave Z @46
“Take a look at the first half of Romans 8 and Paul’s emphasis on the Spirit. He says we’re led by the Spirit, controlled by the Spirit, the Spirit testifies to us, gives life to us. The Spirit helps us and intercedes for us. It’s by the Spirit that we put to death the deeds of the body.
I think we can lose the fear that if scripture is either not inspired or not inerrant that we have nothing to rely on. We have the source of scripture dwelling in us”
What you say of the Spirit is true… However we only really know that this is true because we rely on the inerrancy and inspiration of Romans 8. Of course the truth of scripture is not dependent on it being written down and passed on reliably, but when it comes to exegesis and apologetics and actually knowing what it says, everything comes back down to being able to count on the special revelation of scripture being accurate and from God.
Dave Z, email me when you get a chance. Michaelp at reclaimingthemind.org
Michael. Kudos to you. This is just excellent. The approach we take today does more damage to the faith. If anyone believes any of these other things are true, then welcome study to them. Allow them to be challenged. I believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture, but it’s not a hill I’m going to die on. Unfortunately, I know too many Christians that say if Inerrancy isn’t true, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead! Too many atheists think if they can show one error in the Bible, Jesus didn’t rise!
As for evolution, you know what? I’m not a scientist, so I don’t care. As someone who does history, I do know Jesus rose from the dead and that will not change depending on evolution or not. If evolution is true, study will show that. If false, it will show that. I can be open to the study because I have already confirmed for myself that Jesus rose from the dead.
When I encounter an atheist, I am not trying to convince them of something about the Bible. I am trying to convince them of something about Jesus. If I have to say Inerrancy is required to believe in the resurrection, then I am saying it cannot be established by pure historical study. May such a thing never be said!
And yes, I jump on Inerrancy the most because as you know, I have seen firsthand the damage that can be done when this doctrine is put before the resurrection.
And yes, I realize I am jumping into a hornet’s nest. It’s fine with me. I figure I’ll take a few stings also in support of your stance.
One of my profs recently said that we should careful in defining Christianity in a way that would have eliminated inclusion of the NT saints of the first few centuries. I think he is right.
@Michael: Quoting scripture scholars is a slippery slope and somewhat subjective. Outside of F.F. Bruce, the list means little to me anyway, as Marshall does not believe Paul wrote the Pastorals, (my old R. Catholic scripture scholar friend, Joseph Fitzmyer SJ, Jesuit, is here too. He is generally a pretty good exegete. But our theological presuppositions do matter!) And who knows where Wright is? Btw, we must beware of a “Deconstructing” so-called Evangelicalism, seems popular today! And btw Ipsissima Vox and Ipsissima Verba are surely useful, but they are theological construct’s. But I would not want to completely challenge the veracity of the latter!
My wife made a very important point the other day. Unless you believe in Genesis, you can’t believe in the New testament either. If you believe in evolution, then you certainly cannot believe that God created one man Adam and one woman Eve. If you don’t believe that, then certainly you cannot believe in Sin, because the Bible is very clear that Sin entered the world, through one man, Adam. And of course, if you don’t belive in sin, Then there is no point in believing in Jesus.. Iff you claim that the world was created through evolution, you are denying Sin as well, and then the whole question arises as to why Jesus even came. If there was no literal Genesis, there was no reason for Jesus to have come!! Think carefully. If you think you don’t care about evolution, your theology is skewed. The answer to the question as to how Sin entered the world, and why Jesus came and died will all become a big question mark? So belief in a literal genesis is very inportant for the right understanding of why Jesus came and died. And well, someone said, they don’t care about evolution, because they are no scientist. God did not write Genesis for scientists. He wrote it for the simple minded, and you don’t have to be a scientist to believe in God’s word!
Paul T. Did you ever consider that just maybe Genesis isn’t a scientific account? Maybe it was never meant to be? Maybe we’re reading that through post-Endarkenment lenses? I think John Walton has made an excellent case on how to interpret Genesis. This also does not mean there is no real Adam and Eve. I know a number of theistic evolutionists who hold to a literal Adam and Eve and believe sin came through them.
Bottom line is all truth is God’s truth. I don’t have to run in fear of evolution. If it is false, that will be shown and it will be shown scientifically. If it is true, that will be shown and it will be shown scientifically. If I know Jesus rose from the dead on a separate basis, that of history, then the answer to evolution doesn’t concern me and I don’t have to worry about it. I can grant the atheist so much of their worldview and they STILL have to deal with mine in that I still have Jesus rising from the dead.
Are you going to tell me that if you found out that evolution was true tomorrow that that would mean the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus is completely false?
@Paul T:
When you build on a shaky foundation, the whole building is unstable. Your first few sentences contain faulty assumptions that compromise everything that follows.
Follow your own advice – think carefully. Investigate what other people really think about these issues and why. It may not be the simple progression of logic that you think it is.
St. Paul loved to quote from Genesis! (2 Cor. 4: 6) Btw Paul T. see and old book by Andrew Jukes, Types in Genesis. I think the American publisher Kregel has re-published it. A sweet read! Here are the many figures of spiritual truth in the book of Genesis.