Wednesday
May072008
Controversy
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 7:39AM Some preliminary conclusions on theological controversy:
- Some things are worth fighting for. Some things are important and worth discussing, but not worth splitting over. Some thing aren't worth fighting about at all. The trick knowing which issue belongs in which category.
- Everyone has a list of things that are worth fighting for. The only question is what's on the list.
- Here's a short list of what's worth fighting for: the authority of Scripture and the gospel. (UPDATE: See the comments for some clarification.)
- You can and should have things you believe strongly, but remember - these aren't essentials. They're still important though.
- Fighting for something doesn't require nastiness. Honesty and respect go a long way when we disagree.
- Controversy is hard. It's sometimes necessary, but it always takes a toll and we're not supposed to like it.
Reader Comments (31)
Bill: Your questions are fair enough. They go back to an earlier post: http://www.dashhouse.com/darryl/2008/05/tim_keller_what_is_an_evangeli.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.dashhouse.com/darryl/2008/05/tim_keller_what_is_an_evangeli.htm (By the way: I don't know anybody who holds to the dictation view of inspiration you talk about. No doubt they exist; I've just never met one in the wild.) I like Augustine's statement, but I think it leaves out the middle level of convictions that are neither essentials nor preferences. I think it's important to maintain that. Otherwise pretty much everything becomes an essential or else everything becomes just a preference. I'm not arguing that we agree on every point of Scripture and Gospel. In broad terms, I'm arguing that we begin with understanding that God has revealed himself, and that what he's revealed is sufficiently clear that it functions as our authority. That doesn't mean we will always agree on what Scripture says, but it does mean that we take it seriously and let it contradict us. As Rev. Mike said in the comments, "Are you going to treat it seriously and ask of it the same questions it asks of you, regardless of where it takes you, or are you going to play around and eisegete your way out of its clear meaning?" Keller's illustration of a Stepford God (have you heard it?) comes in handy here. I agree that biblioatry is a danger, but honestly I encounter more of the opposite: not taking Scripture as seriously as we should. Few of us take it as seriously as Jesus seemed to. That blows me away because if anyone didn't have to take it seriously, it would be him. Still, I agree: it's tragic to displace God with Scripture just as it's tragic to displace Scripture with some other source of authority. As for Gospel, I agree with Keller that there is one Gospel with many different forms. In essence it's that salvation is by sheer grace alone through faith alone in the substitutionary work of Christ alone. We don't save ourselves. That's fairly broad and doesn't focus on only one image of the atonement or on Calvinism, etc. It includes personal and cosmic implications. Feel free to push back. I think it's important to figure out what the core is. I think it's too easy to presume we all agree on what's essential. Good to have you back in T.O. by the way.
Darryl, 'Tis good to be home. I look forward to having a pint or a coffee (or a pint of coffee) with you, soonest! Those who believe in the dictation theory of Scripture may be closer than we think. Let me quote from the Westminster Theological Seminaries April Handout to Students, Faculty Theological Documents, Page 7:
Tim Keller got part of his education at WTS and also taught there, I believe. It would be interesting to get his reaction to the above. (I'm not suggesting the above does or does not reflect Dr. Keller's position. I know he holds a very high view of Scripture, and, for what it's worth, I hold a very high view of him.) Is the Gospel only about Salvation? What is the Gospel of the Kingdom? Is the Gospel our "Ticket to Heaven" or is there more to it than that?The document is available here: http://snipurl.com/27mcf" rel="nofollow">http://snipurl.com/27mcf [www_wts_edu]
No, the Gospel is much larger than many make it to be. Sorry, Bill, I'm assuming stuff that I've been posting on recently, which isn't really fair. Check this out: http://www.newcitypres.com/blog/?p=326" rel="nofollow">http://www.newcitypres.com/blog/?p=326 Again, Keller says: "In the person of Jesus, God emptied himself of his glory and became human (incarnation). Through the work of Jesus God substituted himself for us and atoned for our sin, by grace, bringing us into fellowship with him in the church (substitution). At the return of Jesus, God will restore creation and make a new world in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever (restoration)." I really don't like when people make secondary issues into primary ones, so continue pushing back if you think I'm doing that. Essentially I'm saying we need to be clear about two points: 1. God has revealed himself. 2. Salvation (personal and cosmic) is of the Lord, not us.
Great link. And I would easily agree with your two points as stated. As usual, I've learned much from our interaction.
Thanks, Bill. That's the problem with shorthand; I probably sound like a fundy if I just say, "Fight for Scripture and Gospel!" I appreciate you helping me to clarify this.
Darryl, so by your own definition and discussion above - If a person believes in a simple Gospel...something like Jesus died on the cross to save me from my sins so that I can go to Heaven when I die. This person has violated a primary doctrine and this is worth fighting over with this person and dividing if you can't change him???
Jacob: Great question. No, I would say this person doesn't understand the full extent of the gospel, but I wouldn't say that they deny the gospel. They are still trusting Christ for salvation, even though they don't necessarily agree on all the details. I would certainly discuss this with him or her but at the same time view them as a brother or sister. Does that make sense?
Darryl, "scripture is authoratative" and "God has revealed himself" are not equivalent statements, though both are true. I do not believe the latter is a better thought out substitute for the former, free of fundy overtones. One loses WAY too much. A high view of scripture is of little value to us if we do not enthusiastically embrace the scripture's authority.
Hi John "The Fundy" Bell: I know you too well, you're not Fundy in the pejorative sense. ;) I think the problem is trying to capture this in only a few words while avoiding some of the caricatures that exist. You are right: "God has revealed himself" does not say enough. He has revealed himself through Scripture. When we really understand that God has revealed himself, and that Scripture is this revelation, then we will understand that Scripture is the authoritative Word of God. Everyone appeals to some source of authority; for those who call themselves Christian, Scripture is that authority. Is that better?
You're right, it's difficult to address an issue like this in only a few words. The difficulty is, Darryl, what you have written in response COULD be interpreted two different ways because some of the language is not as precise as it perhaps needs to be, given the epistemological/hermeneutical waters we swim in today. 1) You write, "You are right: "God has revealed himself" does not say enough. He has revealed himself through Scripture." I still want you to say, "He has revealed himself AUTHORATATIVLY through scripture." That is the issue I was addressing in my first comment. And what I mean by authoritatively is that all the words in scripture are God's words in such a way that, when properly interpreted, to disbelieve or disobey any word of scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God. 2)You write, "When we really understand that God has revealed himself, and that Scripture is this revelation, then we will understand that Scripture is the authoritative Word of God." Darryl, I could be completely jumping the gun here, and your going to say “Whoah! Where did all this come from??” but your point above makes me uncomfortable because your epistemological process, if you are formulating a doctrine for scripture's authority (which I am) is starting off on a very subjective/personal/finite note. I think the back door is left open in your formulation to all kinds of trouble. But maybe you were thinking of something else entirely, so this next little bit is all for naught! Regardless, I'm sure it will promote conversation! On one level, you are right: EXPERIENTIALLY this is often how it works (though not always) I, the finite/subjective human knower, come to the belief, or inherit the belief from my interpretive community, that God has revealed himself (in nature, lets say, or human history). Then I move on to the next step: I, the finite/subjective human knower, believe God has revealed himself in holy scripture, too. Next step: I, the finite/subjective human knower, come to believe that the bible is the authoritative revelation of God for all times and cultures. This processes should be reversed. When formulating a doctrine of scripture, we need to start with the bible's authority claims FIRST, its own self-attestation that it is what it says it is – God's true revelation - and is thus authoritative. Whether I come to faith in Christ or not, scripture is STILL the authoritative word of God. I could be a very sincere Muslim, but it would not matter. The Christian bible is still authoritative and I must bend the knee to its truth claims. That is why your last sentence (see below) worries me. It can be interpreted very subjectively - - and it WILL be interpreted subjectively in the philosophically pluralistic culture we live in! You write, “Everyone appeals to some source of authority; for those who call themselves Christian, Scripture is that authority.” Someone could just as easily write the following : “Everyone appeals to some source of authority; for those who call themselves Muslims, the Quoran is that authority.”
Darryl - it makes sense to ME but...based on your 11:17 comment you may have conflicted yourself because I did not say this person believes anything about saving of the cosmos...
So, John, is it safe to say you'd be in agreement with WTS as quoted above.
Hi John, I am not stating that our belief in God's Word makes it so; it is that whether we believe it or not. Experientially though, as you say, I am stating that a proper understanding of the nature of revelation leads to a recognition of the authority of God's Word. I don't think you're coming out of left field at all. My pastor growing up constantly railed against the "I believe it, God said it, that settles it" mantra. He always said we had the order of the first two mixed up, and I agree. God says it; when we realize this we believe it; that settles the authority issue. "God has revealed himself authoritatively through scripture." You and I are in agreement. Jacob: Thanks. I think the definition in the 11:17 comment is a good one, but there are plenty of good people who would define the gospel differently. I guess it shows, again, the importance of carefully defining what we're talking about and allowing appropriate room to flesh out the details within that. Good comments.
Bill: I still haven't read the Peter Enns stuff; I just filed it away actually after meaning to read it for over a week now. I can't speak for John, but you can affirm the plenary inspiration of Scripture without taking the verbal dictation view.
Hello, Bill. I would hold to the concursive theory of inspiration: God in his sovereignty so SUPERINTENDED THE FREELY COMPOSED HUMAN writings we call the scriptures that the result was nothing less than God's words and, therefore, entirely truthful. This WTS handout you found I believe is eccentric. I agree with you, it looks to be advocating dictation theory(though there ARE parts of scripture that God dictates, to be sure, like big chunks of Jeremiah). The last sentence that you highlighted from the handout I would agree with 100%, though I get the impression you disagree with it 100%
Sorry John, but I read it as dictation theory - the words are all God's, unmediated by the human writers "as if He had written it down without human mediation." Which makes Paul's statement in 1 Cor 7:12, rather confusing, n'est-ce pas?
Good article here: http://www.euroleadershipresources.org/resource.php?ID=277" rel="nofollow">http://www.euroleadershipresources.org/resource.php?ID=277 "In conclusion, it seems to me that the traditional doctrine of the plenary, verbal, confluent inspiration of Scripture is a coherent doctrine, given divine middle knowledge. Because God knew the relevant counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, He was able to decree a world containing just those circumstances and persons such that the authors of Scripture would freely compose their respective writings, which God intended to be His gracious Word to us. In the providence of God, the Bible is thus both the Word of God and the word of man."
Bill, I think you are confusing the METHOD of revelation (which I would hold as being concursive, see above) with the RESULT (every word of scripture is just as authoritative and true and without error as if God HIMSELF had taken his finger and written the bible on the side of a mountain). I agree with you, the method is NOT dictation, at least not most of the time (but remember Jeremiah). With Paul, it is certainly NOT dictation, he is writing a letter, typical of the time, with introduction, prescript, body and conclusion. As well, the first four verses of Luke make it very clear that Luke is not writing by dictation, he is looking at sources and conducting interviews etc. And he is writing it all so that Theophilus “might know the CERTAINTY of the things you have been taught”. The finished product of Luke, or any other book of canonical scripture, is authoritative, wrror free and inspired, every single word, "as if he had written it down without human mediation". In summery, the method is not dictation, but concursive and the result is authoritative, error-free, inspired scripture. “Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Regarding 1 Cor. 7:12 - On the contrary, it is not confusing, it actually AFFIRMS my position. Paul is telling the Corinthian church that what he has to say about marriage is just as binding as what Jesus of Nazareth had to say about marriage during his earthly ministry. The phrase "I, not the Lord" of v. 13 is open to misunderstanding if the immediate context of v. 10 is forgotten: a wife must not separate from her husband, etc. - thus says Jesus (Matthew 5:32; 19:3-9; Mk. 10:2; Lk. 16:18). That is what Paul means when he says, “the Lord, not I” in verse 10 - - he is attributing the quote to something Jesus said during his earthly ministry. But in verse 12, Paul says that a believing man or women is not "bound" if the unbelieving spouse takes off - thus says the apostle Paul, with EQUAL authority to that of Jesus. And Paul can write with the same authority with which Jesus spoke because Paul is being "carried along" by the Holy Spirit. What Paul writes IS scripture, as Peter affirms in 2 Peter 3:16, which makes it authoritative because it is “God-breathed”, 2 Tim 3:16, which takes us back to the METHOD of revelation and the self-attestation of scripture for its own authority over all people in all times and cultures.
"My pastor growing up constantly railed against the 'I believe it, God said it, that settles it' mantra. He always said we had the order of the first two mixed up, and I agree. God says it; when we realize this we believe it; that settles the authority issue." I was wrong. He put the saying in this order: -The Bible says it. -That settles it. -I believe it. A little simplistic but it puts the authority in the right place.
Darryl, Are inspired and inerrant the same thing? If God caused all things to work together for the writings of the Scriptures down to the punctuation, did that process also occur when the Canon was being voted on and did God continue the process during the multiple translations? If not, why not? Surely God, who is fully capable of doing exactly what He pleases whenever He pleases, would have continued the manipulation of events and people to ensure the inerrancy of the Scriptures, if that was His intent. If so, which of the modern translations is the God-inspired inerrant one? John, Would you care to unpack ""carried along" by the Holy Spirit" vs dictation for me? In what form do you see the Bible as error free? The original autographs, the KJV (1611) or the present (and numerous) translations. The Canon was accepted (actually voted on) at the end of the fourth Century. Were Peter and Paul speaking prophetically of this Canon in the 1st Century? If every "jot and tittle" is inerrant, then why did Jesus say the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, when clearly it is not? One demoniac or two? YWHW in 2 Samuel 24, or Satan in 1 Chronicles 21? Why does it seem from your position that the Scriptures can only be authoritative if they are inerrant?
Darryl, I love you dearly, but that's the argument the Confederate Christians used to justify slavery as only one example of where that "simplicity" leads.
Bill: I think Keller made a good comment at your blog about the inerrant/infallible distinction: http://www.kinnon.tv/2007/10/keller-in-the-u.html#comment-85063326" rel="nofollow">http://www.kinnon.tv/2007/10/keller-in-the-u.html#comment-85063326 I'm sure I have huge blind spots like the Confederate Christians did, but let's be clear: the problem isn't that the Confederate Christians didn't think highly enough of Scripture. It's that they let their presuppositions color what they read in Scripture. The solution is to be corrected by Scripture; I don't think minimizing its authority is a move in the right direction.
Darryl, My response was to the simplistic nature of the "Bible Says it..." which has been used by every schismatic Protestant group to justify their schisms. And you are too right that we allow our presuppositions to colour what we read in Scripture. That being said; How am I minimizing the authority of Scripture by questioning the doctrine of inerrancy? Is it possible for me to believe completely in the authority of Scripture without requiring every jot and tittle to be inerrant? And, without a tautological argument, how do we reconcile the areas in Scripture that contradict each other with the inerrancy of Scripture.
Bill: I appreciate this discussion. It's not a simple issue, and it's important to think through these issues. I thought you were suggesting that stating, "The Bible says it, that settles it" was wrong. It's certainly not nuanced, and it needs to be unpacked. But generally I think it places us in a subservient position to Scripture, which is good. The alternative is to place ourselves above Scripture, which is exactly what happened in the case of the Confederates. I'm sure it's happening in all kinds of ways today, including in my life, but our goal should be to to submit and be corrected by what God has revealed. Error comes from two sources: deceit or ignorance. Few would want to say there is deceit in the Bible, but many say there are mistakes due to the ignorance of the human authors. But when read properly, I haven't even found cases in which this is a factor. Kevin DeYoung has a quote in his book: "Inerrancy is the conviction that the Bible makes no mistakes. There are metaphors in the Bible, approximations, observational comments on the universe, free quotations, and various types of literature that must be read according to their own 'rules,' not to mention questions of application, but there are no mistakes. The Bible is true in all that it affirms. Whenever we believe the Scriptures, we believe what is true." I recognize there is a danger in expecting the Bible to conform to modern standards of literature, for instance to expect narrative accounts to be written as 21st century news reports. This is a mistake. When read carefully, there are only a few areas I've encountered that don't have obvious solutions, but even these aren't what I'd call contradictions. More tensions, with many possible solutions.