But a “Bible-is-important” Presbyterian…
February 28, 2005
Last semester I was in my youth ministry precept (discussion) and a girl made the following statement: “I come from a Presbyterian background, but…you know, one of those Evangelical, we take Scripture seriously, and the Bible-is-important one of Presbyterian churches…”
Those kind of statements just piss me off. I just want to respond with a “WTF?! So are you saying that every other Presbyterian Church that wouldn’t call itself ‘Evangelical’ doesn’t give a damn about the Bible?” [Course, I'm very much a passive-aggressive/not-confrontational person, so I wouldn't have said that.]
But seriously, those statements just reek of Evangelical-arrogance. If you are an Evangelical or an evangelical (see this for the difference), I think it’s great that you take the Bible seriously. That’s a good thing, I may have problems with some of your interpretations, but I think it’s good that you take the Bible seriously. But don’t even begin to think that you are the only ones who take the Bible seriously. There are other Presbyterians, who wouldn’t want to call themselves “evangelical” who take the Bible seriously. There are liberals who take the Bible seriously. Hell, there are even non-Christians who take the Bible seriously.
So let’s be careful about the language and statements we make concerning our churches and whether they’re “Bible-believing” or not. Many times these statements are just ridiculous…
Posted in Rants
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
February 28th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
I understand your concern & echo it.
I’ve worked in 2 presbyterian churches, one PCA & one PCUSA. You probably know that there are some serious battle lines drawn between these two denominations. You may also know that there are also some battle lines drawn within the PCUSA itself between churches who believe in the authority of scripture & those who are percieved not to. I find it very sad.
However, I also know that a pastor was hired at a large PCUSA church close to mine who did not believe that Jesus came & died for the attonment of our sins. Sounds like they aren’t taking the Bible very seriously to me.
Just my $.02
February 28th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Gotta weigh in here. “Bill” and “Mike Wood” (me!) have a conversation about this going on in the comments under the Ingrid Schlueter post. Check that out for more.
I might shock some people who’ve read that exchange, but I think Adam is right. Some liberals and other non-evangelicals do take the Bible seriously, even change the way they live because of what it says. The problem with what the girl said, though, was that she did not go far enough in what she probably really meant.
She meant that those who are unwilling to subscribe to the traditional (Warfieldian Princetonian, I might add!) understanding of biblical inerrancy are not taking the Bible seriously. They are merely using some other measure (personal caprice? church tradition?) to choose which parts of the Bible they will agree to (the Golden Rule, let’s say), and which they will not (Rom 1:26f.; 1 Cor 6:9).
Mike
February 28th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Let us be clear that what Mike is calling “traditional (Warfieldian Princetonian)” is only tradition dating back to about the time Warfield and others were writing about it. Calvin and Luther, among others, wouldn’t have recognized it. But they probably would have called themselves evangelical.
February 28th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
I’m not so sure about that, Brian. A few points:
1) Did Calvin and Luther find errors in the Bible? Admittedly, Luther’s view of the canon was different from that of today’s conservative evangelical inerrantists, but in which of the parts of the Bible he accepted (which was the vast majority of the 66 books) did he find errors? As for Calvin, as I’ve read some of his commentaries I’ve found that he provides lots of help in clearing up difficulties. I’ve never seen him posit an error in the Bible.
I guess I’m not sure I want to put much time into this point because what Luther and Calvin believed is not the measure of what all Christians should believe, despite my deep respect for both of them.
2) The comparative age of a doctrine is not the measure of its truthfulness: the doctrine of the Trinity was not well understood in the church for many many decades after the apostles were dead.
3) Most doctrines aren’t carefully formulated by the church until they come under attack or until heresies pop up. Ironically for all those who want to call me a modernist =), it was 19th and 20th century modernism that helped forge the current understanding most evangelicals have of inerrancy. Before that it just wasn’t as much of a battle.
Mike
February 28th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
She meant that those who are unwilling to subscribe to the traditional (Warfieldian Princetonian, I might add!) understanding of biblical inerrancy are not taking the Bible seriously. They are merely using some other measure (personal caprice? church tradition?) to choose which parts of the Bible they will agree to (the Golden Rule, let’s say), and which they will not (Rom 1:26f.; 1 Cor 6:9).
Hmm, and taking the Bible “seriously” ala an inerrant interpretation, is without “personal caprice” or “church tradition”? I think not. The same can be said for Evangelicals: they tend to ignore the Golden Rule whilst making Romans 1:26f (ignore the rest of the entire letter) the benchmark for being a true Christian.
Good post by the way: when I attended an Evangelical church decades ago I reveled in my smugness (that I had it right and “they” had it wrong).
February 28th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Mike, I find your 3rd point to be interesting. What you say is probably true, BUT…could it be that those same controversies caused both sides to have a somewhat skewed view of the truth?
In other words, in my experience, we all tend to react to something we perceive to be unbalanced by distorting the truth too much in the opposite direction. Know what I mean? I just wonder if the Modern view of inerrancy you speak of is a cas in point.
Also, I’m not convinced that inerrancy, as you would define it, is a strictly biblical view. In other words, I think there may be tradition involved there, too. I think it’s harder to separate what the text actually says and the traditional interpretation of that text than people make it out to be.
I think something positive that the emerging church has done, Mike, is to own up to some of the difficulties involved in all this…to own up to our subjective nature as human beings. And they do that over and above, I might add, the liberal tendency to go the opposite direction with their own over-developed sense of certitude. We might not agree with all of the conclusions that are drawn by the emerging “conversation,” but nonetheless, I think it is valuable for the reasons I’m stating.
February 28th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
“They are merely using some other measure (personal caprice? church tradition?) to choose which parts of the Bible they will agree to (the Golden Rule, let’s say), and which they will not (Rom 1:26f.; 1 Cor 6:9).”
Mike, that is an absurd statement. It misrepresents those who read the scriptures differently than you do by casting them as people who “throw out what they don’t like.” That’s not what they’re doing, and you’re smart enough to know that. I made that case to you in the “Ingrid Schlueter: Spiritual Deception Pt. 3″ discussion. You said that you agreed with Adam’s post, but within one paragraph you did the exact same thing he criticized in it: you depicted those who don’t agree with your narrow, fairly recent way of reading the Bible as non-traditional capricious people who toss out scriptures on a whim. That’s neither accurate nor fair. It’s an attempt to smugly deride those who don’t hold your views.
February 28th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Keith, God help me not to be smug, because God knows that if I stand, I stand on the shoulders of giants.
As for accusing of heresy those who disagree with my interpretations, I hope that I’ve established a willingness for flexibility on passages of Scripture that are difficult to interpret. I am simply unwilling to relativize the clear passages (”Christ was raised from the dead on the third day”) because the meaning of some passages (”baptized for the dead”) is disputed by men equally committed to _taking the Bible seriously_. There have to be some passages that are beyond dispute, and I believe the examples I chose in my first post constitute clear statements. How am I supposed to regard Christians who deny Rom 1:26f–or the Golden Rule? =)
Now, I have to ask that you handle my argument, perhaps in the light of my initial question in the Schlueter comments. By what measure can I determine which parts of the Bible are true if I am not willing, in principle, to submit to anything the Bible says once I know what that is? I certainly will not say that personal caprice and church tradition are the only two means to answer that question. That, you are right, would be unfair. But I think you’d agree that those are two options people take.
What is your personal answer? How do you know which parts of the Bible are true? Did the resurrection happen? If yes, how do you regard someone who disagrees with you on that point?
—-
Bill,
I guess our conversation has moved over here. =)
I admit that a measure of church tradition has affected me. How can I avoid that? But what I will say is that any time I can in good conscience be persuaded that something I am doing or believing comes from church tradition and stands opposed to Scripture, I will adjust my practice to Scripture. An example: long-cherished evangelical traditions like the practices of traveling revivalists.
I do believe that inerrancy is a strictly biblical view, and I have to point to 2 Tim 3:16. How can theopneustos Scripture have errors?
Mike
February 28th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
Adam, amen.
February 28th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
“How am I supposed to regard Christians who deny Rom 1:26f–or the Golden Rule?”
The same way you regard Christians who deny passages like Lev. 19:27, 20:9, 1 Cor. 11:5-6, or 11:14-16. I assume you don’t accuse them of throwing out scriptures willy-nilly because they feel like it. They’re making the same kind of interpretative moves as those who deny Rom. 1:26–and unless you believe that men shouldn’t shave, we should stone disobedient children, a woman who prays with an uncovered head is dishonorable, and a man with long hair is disgraceful–then you’re doing the same thing. To say that your judgments of which scriptures to take literally and which to disregard are OK–but that other people who make the same type of judgments on different verses aren’t OK–is inconsistent. Either you read the Bible literally or you don’t. Unless you’re keeping Levitical laws–and unless your mom wears a bonnet in church–then you’re not taking it literally.
That’s not to say that you can’t disagree with their interpretations–that’s certainly fair game. But to accuse them of biblical relativism is unfair and inaccurate.
“By what measure can I determine which parts of the Bible are true if I am not willing, in principle, to submit to anything the Bible says once I know what that is?”
This question doesn’t really make sense to me. I think you’re asking–how can I decide what is true if I’m not going to do what it says anyway because of my predetermined beliefs? I don’t see how that issue relates to you casting those who disagree with your way of interpreting the Bible in an unfair light by saying that they just throw stuff out. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your hermeneutical model necessarily falls into this category? If so, that’s absurd. If not, then I don’t know what this means or what relevancy it has to the discussion.
“I certainly will not say that personal caprice and church tradition are the only two means to answer that question. That, you are right, would be unfair. But I think you’d agree that those are two options people take.”
Sure, people do take those two options, but most of the people that you’re arguing against on this site–like the students at PTS or the leaders of emergent–wouldn’t be those kinds of people. They may interpret the scriptures differently than you do and come down in different places on issues like women in ministry, homosexuality, or a host of other issues–but that doesn’t mean that their reading is governed by either personal caprice or church tradition. To put it another way: people can interpret the Bible differently than you do and still believe the Bible. Seriously.
What is your personal answer? How do you know which parts of the Bible are true? Did the resurrection happen? If yes, how do you regard someone who disagrees with you on that point?
I think the entire Bible is true, but I also read it for what it is–and I don’t think its truth or meaning is contingent upon whether much of the history described there happened or not. On the resurrection, here is an article that I think will help define our differences:
Article
You would likely fall into category two. I am in category three. The problem is that you seem to think that anyone who is not in category two is in category one. That would be a mischaracterization of my view, and–as the article argues–I think category three is the better way to go about interpreting the resurrection and the Bible in general. The important question: do you think that someone can hold a category three view and still be a traditional Christian, or do you think category two is the only way to go?
I’m not interested in a point-by-point debate over biblical hermeneutics, nor am I interested in lobbing scripture grenades at each other and see who gets hurt. That’s unhelpful and boring. All I want to defend is the idea that people can approach the scriptures with integrity and honesty and interpret them radically different than you do–even on matters like homosexuality and women in ministry–and still be said to “believe the Bible.”
February 28th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
Wow….I guess whenever we talk about the Bible being important, it’s necessary to head directly to inerrancy…?
A friend just stopped by and gave me an analogy I really loved, and wanted to develop here. This friend said that inerrancy is the Egypt we’ve all (most of us) have left behind. We’re out in the wilderness right now - wondering where we’re going to bed led to - but we’re all pretty sure we aren’t heading back to Egypt. Of course, there are still those back in Egypt, yelling, “Come on back!! It’s not as bad as it seemed - see, you don’t even know where you’re at anymore in the wilderness - come back where we can give you the surety you desire.”
We don’t desire that surety though - we don’t know exactly where we’re going next, but we’re okay with that. We’re waiting for Moses to come and lead us…so who will be the Moses to lead us into the promised land? I don’t know - but I would trust this “Moses” - a man who sure the hell is ready to be done with Egypt…
How else can we believe the Bible to be important, without having to go directly to the inerrancy question…?
February 28th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Keith, I don’t have access to that particular journal online, though I likely can find it in analog form if you give me the bib info. I really would be happy to do that.
Now, I’m glad you brought up specific passages. I have to say that I believe this is the best way to have such discussions.
Now, Keith, I’m going to argue that you’ve picked some questions argued over (courtesouly) by good men as examples of “clear statements.” I do not dismiss any of the passages you mention. I have biblical statements telling me why I should not be following the OT laws you mentioned, and as for 1 Cor 11…
I’ve done extensive exegetical work in that passage. In fact, the ladies at my church do wear headcoverings–not bonnets, but culturally appropriate hats and other coverings. Interestingly, I disagree with my own beloved pastor’s interpretation of this passage. But each of us is trying to be honest with a difficult portion of Paul’s writings (and even Peter admitted that Paul’s writings were hard to understand–2 Pet 3:16). If you want to dive into exegesis, I can do that with you. However, I don’t think I need to do that in order to make the point that you have not picked a clear statement of Scripture. Men equally committed to inerrancy and proper hermeneutics differ on how to interpret that passage.
Moving on to the OT passages you cited: I’m almost surprised to see you say this, because it’s the same argument I see over and over again in British and American newspapers: “Why all this fuss about homosexuality when no Christian would shun eating shellfish or would stone disobedient children?” Keith, Christ fulfilled the law. I am bound to obey Levitical laws, even if those laws do tell me a lot about God’s character. The Jerusalem Council, Jesus in Mt 5:17, Peter’s vision of the sheet, Paul’s arguments against Peter in Gal 2, a lot of other statements about the law by Paul–all these tell me that I am not under Mosaic law.
Here again, though, you’ve picked statements in Scripture that are not clear in the same way Rom 1:26 and the Golden Rule are. Sure, those verses in their historical context were unequivocal. But this is a new era instituted by Christ (who, incidentally, set aside all of Israel’s food laws with a mere word–Mk 7:19). How, then, do I apply the OT passages you mentioned? That conversation started before Acts 15, and it continues today.
Keith, your questions are fair, but I have to suggest that you are unfair to imply that I am “lobbing Scripture grenades,” as if it’s my intent to hurt people. If I ever say, “Homosexual acts are sinful, and if you don’t repent of them you will not inherit the kingdom of God–Paul says so in the Bible!”, I by God’s grace try to speak those truths in love, and I say them in order to help people. I also don’t pick the fight; I wait till God leads me to have to say it.
Which brings me back to this point: I cannot agree to disagree about clear statements of Scripture. Homosexual acts are wrong. No radically different interpretations of Paul are acceptable because Paul’s words are clear. Christ was raised from the dead. God said so, and no alternate interpretations of that passage are acceptable (Gal 1:8-9).
February 28th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Adam,
Something about you… You always seem to remain above the fracas you create in your comments… =)
But I have to ask: What if Moses never comes? Are you content to die having never figured out which parts of the Bible are true? Paul–was he wrong?–says in 1 Cor 15 that our eternal pleasure or damnation hangs on a series of historical events.
Mike
February 28th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Mike, I am able to do that, aren’t I?
Yes, I would be okay living in the wilderness. I’ll be content have never figured out a lot of stuff…
February 28th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
Mike, if you’ve read Paul at all then you understand his eschatological perspective, right? You understand that Paul conceived of us living “at the convergence of the ages,” right? What does this mean for biblical interpretation? It means that WE LIVE IN THE DESERT, in the in-between NOW, in the already-not-yet.
Of course we are ready to die without all the answers. Paul describes our situation as only “knowing in part,” because now “we see in a mirror, dimly” (1 Corinthians 13:9,12).
The notion that any human being has ALL the answers is ridiculous. (I commend Dostoevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor” in The Brothers Karamazov to you on this topic). It is not the church’s job to give humans the nice, tightly packaged propositional truths you love so much. No one will go to their grave having understood everything perfectly, and those who do have only deceived themselves. I would caution you against identifying “knowledge of God” with propositional truth. Knowing God is doing God’s will, not knowing “which parts of the Bible are true.” Such an insidious and dangerous desire is the disgusting result of an Age of Reason during which the human mind was idolized as God.
I do not worship Reason. I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — the God who acts, the living God. The God I worship cares much less about “which parts of the Bible are true” and more about whether I am loving neighbor as self.
February 28th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Adam, let me focus the question further: What about your personal eternal destiny? Are you content to live in the wilderness about that?
Please, there is no triumph in my voice. I only ask.
Mike
February 28th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
I’ll respond to that one. There is no such thing as personal eternal destiny. No person is an island.
February 28th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Adam?
February 28th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Wow — people are making Cleave actually speak up on his own blog now.
Yah Mike - there are a hell of a lot more important things I need to be worrying about than being so concerned about my own, individual, personal, eternal destiny. I am in agreement with Kellen. [Mike, see Progressive Christian Blogger Network blogroll on the right: I'm not listed there for nothing man...]
February 28th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Adam, I won’t make you speak up anymore. You answered a direct question, and you answered it directly.
I’ll only say that Paul disagrees with you: “God will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness….”
I will not write the rest, not because I’m above Paul, but because I’m below him–I don’t feel as bold as he right now.
Mike
February 28th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
Stalemate!
February 28th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Yes, Kellen–Adam Cleaveland vs. Paul the Apostle.
February 28th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
No, Mike — Your hermeneutical bias vs. Adam’s hermeneutical bias.
February 28th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
Mike:
Citation: Scottish Journal of Theology 57(2): 163-181 (2004).
I find these two statements interesting:
“Men equally committed to inerrancy and proper hermeneutics differ on how to interpret that passage.”
and
“I cannot agree to disagree about clear statements of Scripture.”
Does anyone else see the irony there? When it’s an issue that might affect his life, there is room for disagreement. But, when it’s an issue that allows him to castigate the sinners around him (like homosexuals), there is no room for debate. Interesting. I wonder why you grant interpretative flexibility for the verse about women covering their heads but not about homosexuality, because I see Paul being equally clear in both passages. How are those who interpret the homosexuality passage differently than you do making a different type of move than you are making with the women head-covering passage? It seems to me that they’re doing the same thing. You allow flexibility in one instance (when it suits your needs), and don’t allow flexibility in another (when it fits your agenda). It seems to me that you have a weak doctrine of scripture, because it changes whenever the water gets hot. You say that you can pull out your exegesis of the passage and show me how it is unclear, but don’t you think I can do that with the homosexuality passage or any number of others?
Here again, though, you’ve picked statements in Scripture that are not clear in the same way Rom 1:26 and the Golden Rule are. Sure, those verses in their historical context were unequivocal. But this is a new era instituted by Christ (who, incidentally, set aside all of Israel’s food laws with a mere word–Mk 7:19). How, then, do I apply the OT passages you mentioned? That conversation started before Acts 15, and it continues today.
Two things:
(1) You judge verses that you like–like the ones condemning homosexuality–to be “clear”, but verses you don’t like–like the ones saying women should cover their heads in worship–to be “unclear”. What this means is that you’re subjecting different verses to different standards of interpretation, and those standards are not biblical standards, but are your own subjective judgments of what is clear and what is not. You’re bending the scriptures to fit your preconceived notions, because you decide what to take literally or not based on your own decision on what is clear and what is not. Either the scripture means what it says or it doesn’t–and for you it obviously doesn’t. Don’t you see that all the stones you’re throwing at everyone else here who “throws stuff out of the Bible that they don’t like” could be thrown at you for the same crime? You’re doing the exact same thing that you’re arguing against.
(2) You say that the OT verses “in their historical context were unequivocal” in meaning, but then you say that their meaning changes in light of Christ. So the words in the OT text don’t actually mean what they say, but you have to filter their clear meaning in light of what Christ teaches. How is that any different than taking other clear words of scripture and filtering them through any other hermeneutical key, like “God’s love” or “grace”, or “that was their cultural context, this is ours”? If you can deny the literal words of scripture in some instances because of what you see as a clearer revelation somewhere else in the Bible, can another person deny the literal words of scripture about something like homosexuality because of what they see as a clearer revelation somewhere else in the Bible? If you can do it, why can’t someone else?
Or is it that you’re right and they’re wrong that settles it? You get to decide what’s “clear” and what’s “unclear” and no one else can disagree with you on that? For all your humble sounding statements, your hermeneutic is built on a foundation of arrogance, becasse it is based solely on your subjective judgments–not on scripture itself. If you can’t be certain that OT passages are true or not, and if you can’t be certain that certain passages or clear or unclear, what the hell can you be certain about in scriptures, and what in the Bible can you really know is clear? Your view of the Bible seems like so much shifting sand.
February 28th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
…ooooooweee! Is it hot in here, or is it just me?
- kp -
February 28th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
Nope, definately getting hot in here. It seems like the battle lines have been drawn. Instead of arguing, perhaps you should try and find some common ground..just a thought.
February 28th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Well…my fear is that there may not BE common ground…
February 28th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
i think cleave would kick paul’s ass.
and i am a little worried that you can get in trouble for having long hair…
and i think that what Jesus said on the Cross (the cornerstone of the Bible…?) is true in this discussion: Forgive them Father. They know not what they do.
God speaks to humans in human language so that we can understand. That is a nice thing for God to do. We should accept that our language is wrought with pitfalls, whether they be translation issues or theological discourse (just to cite two of the most immediate problems). With respect to the former, I find it ironic that those who argue for inerrancy cite a specific translation of the Bible. As for the later, the best we can do is approximate in theological discourse because God is so far beyond our linguistic, rational, emotional, and spiritual faculties. Hopkins said God must be a poet. Jesus spoke in parables. The Psalms are still amongst the most quoted passages of the Bible. Meaning in the sense of knowing a priori is just not possible, unless we want to enclose God in Webster’s Dictionary. Despite my best intentions to do just that, deep down I know that God speaks through God’s word as we have it. And what God says to me is different than what God says to others. Our common bond is the axis upon which we all spin (to refer to the classic wheel/body of Christ analogy…which is coincidentally an approximation;) is Jesus Christ, God incarante and God revealed.
A reporter once asked Karl Barth (someone who knew something about the Bible) to summarize the Gospel in one sentence. After a pause, Barth said, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” I say we anchor ourselves to that first, and then discuss the other, trickier stuff in light of the anchor.
peace.
February 28th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
Well said, Jamey.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:18 am
Mike
You make it sound as if the reason to worship God & follow Christ is because he can give you something (”personal eternal destiny”). To me it seems that God should be worshipped and served because God is God, worthy to be worshipped and served. Christ reveals God as this. God who loves us, who desires to be in relationship with us, calling us back to Godself. I have a pastor friend who responds this way when faced with questions about the inerrancy of Scripture…”We don’t worship the Bible (i.e.-we don’t read the Bible & claim it as authority because it is perfect and without error), instead we worship the God whom the Bible points to, the God whom the Bible reveals. In scripture we are confronted with Christ revealing who God is and what God desires/requires for us to be in relationship with “Him.” This is not by holding to propositional truths. Certainly the Bible is concerned with “right” and “wrong” but what does Scripture witness to the most regarding these? What does the Lord require? (Here’s where I bust out MY interpretive key!) “To do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6.8). It seems to me that Scripture & Christ are much more interested in these than homosexuality and inerrancy.
I agree with Jamey that Barth’s quote is a great definition of what we must hold to as gospel truth.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:03 am
Great thoughts, guys. Keith, you rock.
Now I have a question. I understand why people are trending away from putting SO much emphasis on personal salvation, but don’t you believe that such a thing still exists? In other words, putting our individualism aside, which I understand is a problem, doesn’t the individual still exist in God’s eyes? Doesn’t he love us individually as well as collectively?
I’m trying to clarify because I don’t want to see us, in fighting against individualism, throw out the truth that individuality does exist and (I think) is addressed in the Bible.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:45 am
Keith, et al. contra mihi, I’m willing, like any committed Protestant, to leave Bible interpretation eventually up to the conscience of individual believers–understanding, of course, that God gave pastors and teachers and evangelists to the church to help it understand the Scriptures (Eph 4).
No, I am not the final arbiter for the church of what is “clear” or “unclear” in Scripture. Neither are all the evangelical scholars committed to inerrancy. No one is the final arbiter. Each man stands or falls before God on his own. However, I find it interesting that those interpreters who are committed to inerrancy tend to arrive at the same conclusions about the Bible. They agree on what the gospel is, who Jesus is, why the world is so messed up. Even the strongest evangelical Arminian is separated from the strongest evangelical Calvinist by only a small step compared to how far each is from a theological liberal. Kellen was right to say that there is essentially no common ground between them.
Keith, I dismiss none of the passages you mention. I’ll have to repeat myself: The NT says explicitly (I listed just a few passages in my last post) that the new era ushered in by Christ has done away with the requirements of Mosaic law. That law was not given directly to me, but to Israel. Christ fulfilled the law. In many cases this resulted in the removal of its direct applicability to the New Covenant beleiver (for more exegetical detail see D.A. Carson on Matt 5). You seem to want to say that we’re in yet a new era and can now do away with other commands that the NT gives. But no major salvation-historical event has occurred since the first century. We have no right to usher in our own new era and do away with the commands of the NT.
You brought up 1 Cor 11 again but did not listen to me when I said that I interpret it differently from my pastor not because it is inconvenient for me but because of careful exegesis. Again, I’m wary of getting into that with you for space and other reasons, but let me just summarize by saying that a careful look at grammar, OT passages, and discourse structure led me to a different conclusion from that of my pastor.
You fail also to realize that I have friends, Christians, who struggle with homosexuality. Far from castigating them, I believe that only the Bible has the answer for them. I bring up that particular issue because it is perfect example of cultural pressure causing non-inerrantists to toss out the parts of the Bible that are inconvenient.
I repeat, Keith, that I am not merely tossing out parts of the Bible. If I disobey OT laws, I do that because the NT told me I should (should!–Acts 10:15). If I do not ask my wife to wear a headcovering (I don’t have a wife yet…) I do so because of exegetical reasons. I would do it if I believed the Bible commanded me to.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:49 am
I have to add biblical data supporting inerrancy (this list is not original to me). The Bible teaches inerrancy. Why do my readers deny it?
1. God is (Gen 1:1; Pss 14, 53; Heb 11:6).
2. God is true (Exod 34:6; Num 23:19; Deut 32:4; Pss 25:10, 31:6; Isa 65:16; Jer 10:8, 10:11; John 14:6, 17:3; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18; 1 John 5:20, 21).
3. God speaks in harmony with His nature (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Rom 3:4; 2 Tim 2:13; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18).
4. God speaks only truth (Pss 31:5, 119:43, 142, 151, 160; Prov 30:5; Isa 65:16; John 17:17; James 1:18).
5. God spoke His true Word as consistent with His true Nature to be communicated to people (a self-evident truth which is illustrated at 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 1:1).
March 1st, 2005 at 11:54 am
Bill,
Yes, I still believe that God loves the individual. I was just prodding. It’s dangerous to annihilate the individual person in our reading of scripture. But it is equally dangerous to deny that individual’s necessary engagement with the community…
March 1st, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Mike,
None of those prooftexts supports “inerrancy” without your interpretation of those texts. They require you to tell us they say that. The bible does not “teach inerrancy” on its own terms. The authors of scripture lived and wrote long before such a category existed — the enlightenment only occurred yesterday in the grand story of history. Such scientific notions of “truth” and “falsehood” as you and others have defined them were NOT around at the time of the bible’s composition.
That is why we can affirm that “God speaks only truth” without affirming that “God speaks only scientific propositional truth,” which is what you really mean.
March 1st, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Mike, you wrote:
“I find it interesting that those interpreters who are committed to inerrancy tend to arrive at the same conclusions about the Bible.”
That may be so, but are you allowing for the fact that inerrantists don’t necessarily agree on what inerrancy means? Millard Erickson’s definition, for example, seems to be much different from yours (from what little you’ve said). Here’s what he has written:
“The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.” (Christian Theology)
Although I believe he claims to be an inerrantist, that definition seems to be a far cry from what other conservatives would say. Also, it seems to virtually make the term inerrancy useless (at least for the purposes that others use it).
On the subject of homosexuality, I’ve been publicly open about my view that the Bible’s view of sexuality in general seems to speak against it. I reserve the right to be wrong about this ;-) and think it is a problematic interpretational issue, unlike you. I agree with Keith’s assessment of your “picking and choosing” and I think that if more Christian’s would look at the subject more carefully we would tend to be less judgemental about it. I also think we would be able to differentiate between what is problematic about homosexuality and what’s not (i.e. we would do less stereotyping of the gltb community).
I think that it’s sad that while a huge part of Christ’s church is struggling with this issue, some people insist that it’s cut and dry. It may seem that way to you, but even so, I think we have to be sensitive to our brothers and sisters who disagree.
March 1st, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Kellen, Bill has with intellectual honesty admitted that he doesn’t know enough about epistemology to tell the difference between “truth” in some supposed Bible sense and “scientific propositional truth” in some supposed Modernist sense. Will you explain to me the difference?
And let’s not lose sight of Bible claims.
1) Are you suggesting that Luke did not understand modern historiographical categories when he wrote “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene…”? What did Luke really mean when he said all that?
2) Are you suggesting that the writer of Kings (2 Kgs 19:35; echoed by Isaiah in 37:36) was not trying to communicate that 185,000 Assyrians died in one night? What did he really mean?
3) Most importantly, and to this I must return, what did the Gospel writers mean when they said that Christ rose from the dead? What did Peter mean when he said that Christ “committed no sin”? Are those statements true? If I am stuck in Modernist categories, tell me how they are true in your categories.
You say that there was no category called “inerrancy” in Bible times. Sure, there is no equivalent Hebrew or Greek religious term. But does that mean that Moses, David, Samuel, Luke, Paul–any of the Bible writers–did not understand the difference between truth and non-truth? that they would have been able to affirm both “A is B” and “A is not B”?
“Inerrancy” is only a word used to say that the Bible says nothing that is false. True and false existed before the Englightenment, and they exist independent of it. Those verses I listed do teach inerrancy in that they claim that God’s words are true.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:02 pm
Bill, I hesitate to say too much on this score, but how can it be helpful for my lesbian friend for me to suggest that there may be some room for her in Christ’s kingdom even if she never leaves her lesbian relationship? I would be contradicting God Himself (Rom 1:26ff.; 1 Cor 6:9ff.), who loves her far more than I ever could.
I have a friend whom I love dearly who struggles with lesbianism. She has had those desires since childhood but has always known that they were wrong. We spoke not long ago about her struggles. Every time I talk to her about them it helps me put a human–and Christian–face on this particular sin struggle. I’m no Fred Phelps; I do not believe that Fred Phelps is even a regenerated person, because he doesn’t appear to love others as the Bible says all truly born-from-above people do.
I show my love for that friend not by merely affirming what she wants but by examining what God says He wants. Obedience to God is where the most joy is found, even if it comes in and after prolonged struggle.
We must not capitulate to the culture and relativize the Bible by saying that the matter is disputed. Who disputes what the Bible says? No one I know who is committed, in principle, to obeying whatever the Bible says. Read the materials available at SoulForce.org, then contrast them with what’s available at robertgagnon.net, a prof. at Pittsburgh who’s not even an inerrantist and is published by Abingdon.
Homosexual monogamy was known in NT times (so says N.T. Wright–if you want the article, it’s somewhere in my files). The Bible is not merely condemning pederasty or exploitive homosex (so says BDAG).
What love is it for me to my lesbian friend to deny clear Bible statements? What sensitivity does it show for me to encourage her to follow her desires when God says they are wrong and promises punishment for them like for all sins? Ask her–ask her if I condemn her and hate her. Ask her if she believes I love her and speak the truth in love. If you ask her I’m sure she will not say that I hate her. You can’t claim that I am insensitive. I have enough love for her to help her as she seeks to obey the truth.
Again, everyone, I bring this up not because I am interested in bashing all those involved in homosexual sex. Real love for the homosexual can only come from obeying the Bible–or else the Bible is simply wrong. I bring up this issue because I believe it is a perfect example of a clear Bible statement which interpreters today try to relativize away. Thank you, Bill, for being willing to be fair with the text on this one. All kinds of pressures are pushing you away from these clear Bible statements.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:16 pm
No, Mike. I am respectfully resigning from this “conversation.” Sorry, but I’ve already spent too much time trying to convince you of things of which you’ll never be convinced. Best wishes, and I’ll see you after the Resurrection…
March 1st, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Bill, how about we continue the conversation–I think it could still accurately be called that when it comes to you and me–over at your blog instead?
I got to ask Cleave a question–and he answered with a direct statement about his own theology. That’s rare, and sort of a triumph for a commenter. =) I don’t need to take up his comment space anymore now that fellow commenters have clearly marked out their opposition to conservative evangelicalism. I suppose the purpose of my posting is to show that conservative evangelicalism and the EC, as incarnated around Princeton at least, are diametrically opposed. Not that I can’t learn anything about engaging culture or being authentic from the EC, but that theologically we cannot and must not agree because of our epistemology and, more importantly, our bibliology. I am certainly not the most able exponent of evangelical bibliology (see Scripture and Truth & Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, by Carson, et al.), but my arguments aren’t a whole lot different from what you’ll see elsewhere.
I, for one, see this clear disjunction as progress. Bill, you have had to take my side several times (on individual salvation, on being sure that the resurrection really happened) because at heart, I think, you are not a relativist and are willing to give up neither clear statements of Scripture doctrine nor your individual salvation. Both are at stake in this debate. It’s hard to converse on a blog, but I hope that our disagreements, at least, are clear.
God help me, I can do no other.
Mike
March 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Mike, that’s cool. Just e-mail if you want to continue the conversation elsewhere.
In the meantime, I want to clear up a few things.
1. I think I was trying to say earlier that I didn’t understand the tendency to disregard propositional truth entirely. It’s not that I don’t understand some of the differentiations that are being made in that regard.
2. Yes, we’ve agreed, but I’m sure you could find a multitude of things you could agree on with most of the people who have commented here.
Example: When I asked some questions about individual salvation, Kellen seemed to agree with me. I think both Kellen and I probably lean toward a communitarian view of the kingdom (vs. individualism). I’m not sure I’m seeing a big disjunction here.
3. I can’t speak for everyone here at Adam’s blog or in the emerging church, but I don’t think what you’re seeing is relativism. I believe I already wrote about the false dichotomy you’e trying to set up between absolutism and relativism.
So no, I’m not a relativist, but neither are the others who are a part of this conversation. I think that relativism is a great “boogey man” for conservative types to scare their kids with. Beyond that, in the real world, the way we experience truth is subjective.
March 1st, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Bill-
Thank you for speaking the words you did in your last comment.
Mike, it makes me sad and frustrated that you could read in any of the comments made that all the other commenters in this discussion don’t believe in personal salvation or that Christ actually lived, was crucified, and rose again! No one came close to saying that…
I have one question for you to clarify…Are you trying to say that homosexuality is a salvific issue?
“how can it be helpful for my lesbian friend for me to suggest that there may be some room for her in Christ’s kingdom even if she never leaves her lesbian relationship?”
If homosexual acts are a sin, then how are they different than any other sins, and how could they possibly mean that Christ would not “have room” in His kingdom?
March 1st, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Rhoda, that’s a fair question, and I won’t leave it unanswered. I believe that what the Apostle Paul said is true, and I’ll quote as much of the context as is necessary to show what he meant:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality [here the ESV conflates the two words which refer to male homosexuals], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
As for lesbianism specifically, Rom 1:26 names it as a sin.
Now, Rhoda, homosexual sin is not different from other sin when it comes to entering the kingdom, according to Paul. That’s apparent because he includes it in a list of other sins. But, Rhoda, Paul clearly says that anyone who commits sin and refuses to repent–whether homosexuals, idolaters, thieves, drunkards–will not inherit the kingdom of God. God offers salvation through Christ and any of these people can be washed. I have been washed.
If a man or woman engages in homosexual sex and never repents, he will not enter God’s kingdom. I could say the same for a thief or a drunkard, because Paul did. I don’t single out homosexual sex for special opprobrium necessarily; I only mention it because no one in the EC is suggesting that stealing is ok (though as for drunkenness…). That’s not where the battle is being fought right now.
As for personal salvation, Rhoda, perhaps you and Bill and I agree that it is of the utmost importance. We deny God glory by refusing to repent and treasure Him. Have you read all these posts? I’m afraid that Adam came more than close to saying that there is no personal salvation. He said “there are a h*** of a lot more important things I need to be worrying about than being so concerned about my own, individual, personal, eternal destiny.”
Now what about Adam’s eternal destiny? Will he be in the kingdom of God? No one here has disputed my reading of any individual portion of Scripture, least of all Paul’s promise in Romans that individuals are heading for heaven or hell (Rom 2:6-11). Instead, everyone here (with a few exceptions I am bound to note) has shouted me down after sniffing conservatism. They shout, “That’s your interpretation!” But they don’t offer their interpretations of individual statements of Scripture or tell me why mine are wrong.
No one here has any authority to tell me I am wrong unless they appeal to an authority higher than both of us. If the Bible is not all true, there is no authority higher than both of us. My word is as good as Adam’s or Kellen’s or Keith’s or Grenz’s or Brueggemann’s. I say there is heaven and a hell. Adam says whatever it is he’s trying to say–it’s hard to nail him down. We disagree. Who’s to say he’s right and I’m wrong? or the other way around?
Maybe we should all live in the wilderness. That’s what Adam says. If that’s not relativism, Rhoda, Bill, what is?
March 1st, 2005 at 8:34 pm
Just so everyone knows - if this conversation turns to “Is homosexuality a sin” - then the comments will be closed.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:39 pm
Mike, that’s a pretty interesting reading of my few comments to say that I don’t believe that individual, personal salvation exists. Who knows - maybe I do believe that - but I certainly have NOT said that.
I believe I said that there are a HELL of a lot more important things to be worrying about, other than “is my butt gonna get in heaven?” That’s NOT the focus of the gospel, of the kingdom of God that Jesus spoke of - and I believe that if WE make it THE focus of the gospel…well, yah. Just don’t make it the focus.
And please, let’s not debate my eternal, personal, individual destiny on this blog — that’s just not going to happen either. Sorry, but as the author of this blog, I DO have a bit of a say as to what gets discussed, and we’re not going to discuss my eternal destiny.
March 2nd, 2005 at 8:16 am
That’s fair enough, Adam. I think your faithful readers would be happy to read what you really do think, but like I said before, you usually seem to remain above the ruckus in your comments section. I also know what it’s like (believe it or not) to be unsure about what you believe on a given question.
Now, it’s an incorrect read of my own comments to say that I believe individual salvation is the focus of the gospel. Though it’s your prerogative to remain above this, I’d be happy to hear what you think the focus of the gospel is? Perhaps I’ll tell you what I think if you tell me what you think…
March 2nd, 2005 at 7:38 pm
My fingers are feeling too underworked, Adam!
I think the “good news” (gospel) is that the kingdom of God is here through the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. I think that kingdom will be fully “consummated” some day. I think repentance is not so much about being “sorry for your sins,” as you seem to be viewing it, Mike. I think it’s about changing your way of life, goals, etc. to conform to the path of following Christ.
I think your notion of not repenting for a specific sin would probably disclude all of us from the kingdom of God. Hopefully, the gates not quite THAT narrow.
March 3rd, 2005 at 10:49 am
Not sure why I am getting involved in a conversation I have no business being in, but here’s my shot off the top of my head…
The “good news” is about God‚Äôs plan for making new all of creation and through being united in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus we have supernatural, spiritual life (actual new life, ‚Äúreborn-ness‚Äù that effects the way we live today, tomorrow and the rest of our lives- Rom. 6) through Christ and we have an opportunity and privilege to partake in and be representatives of what he is doing now here on earth and His fully realized future Kingdom (Rev 21).
feel free to tear it apart…
March 3rd, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Todd, agreed!
Bill, repentance is certainly what you first said it was: placing no limits on God’s rule to your life. It’s not merely backward looking–contrition for past sin and a desire to leave it in the past–but forward looking–a radical change of mind and action and a willingness to do whatever God directs.
I’m not sure what your second paragraph means, though, Bill.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:03 am
you guys should read richard dawkins