DashHouse.com

Darryl,
The "authority of Scripture" is defined how? Isn't that the ongoing battle being fought by the usual suspects at every point on the Christian spectrum. (Perhaps Peter Enns might care to comment.)

How can we explain that perhaps the most rapid growth of Christianity took place before the Canon of Scripture was completed? Does this speak to this at all?

I'm reminded of Brant Hansen's drawing of people worshiping the sign that points to Jesus, rather than Jesus, http://snipurl.com/27k1q or this one of his where the Bible is born in the manger, http://snipurl.com/27k1y.

Does my particular point on the Biblical authority spectrum define whether I'm "in or out"? I don't buy that Scripture is the equivalent of automatic hand-writing, each word controlled exactly by the Holy Spirit. (The apparent position of those who have chosen to throw Professor Enns under the bus at Westminster Theological Seminary.) Am I a heretic?

Augustine purportedly said, "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love." Is a particular understanding of the "authority of Scripture" an essential? What is that understanding, then?

What do you mean by "the gospel"? Is it the Gospel of the Kingdom? Is it the Gospel of Right Doctrine? Is it the Good News? And good news for whom (if one buys the L of TULIP)? Can you define it for me?

Good grief? I feel like I'm emulating the response style of a certain regular commenter here. My apologies for the aggressive response. However, I'm not sure this line of yours, "Here's a short list of what's worth fighting for: the authority of Scripture and the gospel" provides enhanced clarity to your ongoing discussion.

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

(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:

For the Reformed, God was the author of Scripture, and men were the ministers, used by God, to write God’s words down. Scripture’s author is God, who uses “actuaries” or “tabularies” to write His words, who are themselves instrumental secondary authors. Reformed thought has been careful to see God as the primary author, and men as instrumental secondary authors. And, if instruments, then what men write down is as much God's own words as if He had written it down without human mediation... [emphasis added]

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 [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

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

"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

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.

Great discussion. Very helpful! Here's an idea that comes up a lot in my circles. I'd love your input:

"Inerrancy speaks to the truth of Scripture, if not it's factuality"

Of course, this also needs unpacking, but those who said it to me meant (I think) that, while some details may not be 100% factual(such as seemingly contradictions in facts like in Bill's example), the truth behind them is inerrant.

What do you think?

Peace,
Jamie

Hi Jamie,

Interesting idea. I don't know what "factuality" means in this statement. I think I'd be comfortable with this statement if it means we have to respect the nature of what we're reading - poetry, ancient narrative, etc. But it could be used to suggest that beyond the nature of literature we're reading, there are flat-out factual errors. Do you have a sense of what is meant by this?

The discussion really isn't about what God believes or has done. It really is about what we belief that he has done. Our issues are differences in interpretation. Daryl you link to Bill's 10/1/07 posting on Keller, with a nice exchange in the comments. Keller appeals to what people think it means, and the confusion that results. Well, I'd have to say that this confusion is the product of pastors and theologians who has used inerrancy as the litmus test for whether one is a true or real Christian.

My issue with our Reformed tradition is that in essence it assumes that the most spiritual are by necessity the most intelligent. This is so because in order to understand the Bible we have to buy the system of interpretation that has humanly determined with the Bible says. I'm not saying simplicity cannot lead to error. I am saying that the person who is illiterate and uneducated can understand the depth of God's love and grace in Jesus Christ, and doesn't need a theological system to justify it.

As one who reads Scripture as much as I can within its historical context, I'd say that God first reveal himself authoritatively in Jesus, and then and only then in the words of Scripture. What the inerrancy debate has fostered is a belief that the Scripture had to be defended at all costs. Are we saying that if I can't ably defend the inerrancy of Scripture that it ceases to be inerrant and authoritative? I don't think so. If the Scripture is authoritative, it isn't because of the words themselves or the arguments that claim it. It is because there is power in those words that cannot be challenged.

From my perspective, in the final analysis, the Bible is authoritative because it has shown itself to be in real life -Thanks be to God-not because there is an intellectual argument for it.

Ed:

Thanks for your insightful comment. I think you're right: it's possible to come under the authority of Scripture without understanding all the intellectual debates. I also agree that some in the Reformed camp tend to expect everyone to be intellectual. This isn't to put intellectualism down; we need our scholars, but not everyone is going to be one.

It's important that someone is thinking through what authority and inspiration mean, but there are under the authority of Scripture without understanding all the arguments. That is a good thing.

Hello, Bill,

You write, “Would you care to unpack “carried along” by the Holy Spirit vs. dictation for me.”
I think we are in agreement as to what dictation means: God speaks and the writer is a stenographer, faithfully recording everything God says. As I said, Jeremiah has big chucks of dictation revelation, but most of the bible is not written in this fashion. Being “carried along” is a term that ITSELF is not unpacked in scripture, but I believe we have to arrive at a theory of revelation very close to the concursive theory if we look at the biblical evidence (Lk. 1:1-4, the epistolary style NT letters, etc.) The definition of the concursive theory is: 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.
Where I am seeing reluctance on your part in accepting this definition, Bill, is not the “freely composed human writing” bit – it’s everything else, because you see errors in the bible which undermine its authority. And I agree with you, in so far that if there ARE errors then the scripture’s authority WOULD be compromised. The problem is, scripture ITSELF says there ARE no errors because it is the very word of God and that the human writers were being “carried along by the Holy Spirit”. I think Wayne Grudem makes some good points in his Systematic Theology:
1. If we deny innerrancy, a serious moral problem confronts us: may we imitate God and intentionally lie in small matters also?
2. If innerrancy is denied, we begin to wonder if we can really trust God in ANYTHING he says.
3. If we deny innerancy, we essentially make our own human minds a higher standard of truth than God's word itself.
4. If we deny innerrancy, then we must also say that the bible is wrong not only in minor details but in some of its doctrines as well. A denial of innernecy means that we say that the bible's teaching about the nature of scripture and about the truthfulness and reliability of God's words is false. These are not minor details but are major doctrinal concerns in scripture.
There is an element of mystery when we contemplate the composition of scripture, as is to be expected when dealing with the eternal triune God entering into space/time history and interacting with human beings (think of the virgin birth, the dual nature of Christ, etc). That is NOT to say, however, that we are all floundering in a sea of relativity on this issue, or that we cannot know something to be Absolutely True. We can know something to be TRUE without knowing something EXHAUSTIVLY. All true knowledge, to a biblical way of thinking, is parasitic on omniscience. That is to say, God knows all things and everything humans know is a subset of THAT. Just HOW God through his Spirit carried along human writers as they freely composed scripture we do not know. That he DID and that the result is scripture, and that it is authoritative and True we DO know, because the bible tells us so, God has revealed it to us.

You write, “In what form do you see the Bible as error free? The original autographs, the KJV (1611) or the present (and numerous) translations.”

THE KJV, BABY!!! (Just kidding) I see it in the form of the autographs – but if I may, let me jump ahead to what I presume will be your response. “We have no innerrant manuscripts: therefore, to talk about an innerent bible is misleading.” But in 99% of the words of the bible we KNOW what the autographs said, and we KNOW where the uncertain readings are. For instance (and I know you do not cliam this) those problem texts that you brought up (the smallest seed, the number of demon possessed men) are not textually suspect. We must always be sure to differentiate between the preservation of copies of copies of copies of copies and the inspiration/innerancy of the autographs.
You write, “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?”
I'm not sure where this question is coming from, if there is a particular text I quoted that made you ask this question. I'm guessing that this is in reference to the scripture quoted in 2 Peter 3:16 and that you are inquiring whether Peter was using the term “scripture” in a prophetic way as a reference to the “accepted, voted on cannon” - not the letters of Paul himself in the first century. Is that right? Write back and tell me if I'm way off base before I tackle this.

You write, “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?'
Bill, I'm really enjoying this discussion/debate. One thing I'm going to insist on, however, is that, if we continue, this not turn into a passage by passage breakdown of every text you feel contradicts some other passage, or is a historical, scientific error. I'll deal with the ones you have presented here because they are some of the representative texts that, for centuries, have been thought to undermine the scripture's authority through claims that it is errant. Nothing I present here will be novel; there has been much written on this subject over the centuries, and I make no claims for originality.
Just to be precise, the context of “every jot and tittle” does not occur in a discussion about scriptural innerency – though I agree with the sentiment as you have understood it. But in context we read that Jesus did not come to abolish the Old Testament writings. He acknowledges their immutability, their unchanging character. Not a jot or tittle will fall away “until everything is accomplished.” But let’s not debate what that MEANS just now!:)

Mustard seed – Grudem, again, is helpful, so I'll rip him off. You say that the mustard seed is not REALLY the smallest seed of all the seeds in the word and therefore Jesus is not really careful to be inerrant. But implicit in this argument (if that IS your argument) is a rather specialized scientific sense for the word seed, like a definition found in a modern dictionary: “a fertilized and ripened plant ovule containing an embryo capable of geminating to produce a new plant.” However, Jesus and his hearers would have been unlikely to attach any such modern scientific meaning to the word “sperma”. In an agricultural society “seed” would have meant to both Jesus and his hearers something like, “that which people plant in the ground to grow crops (“Sperma” takes this sense in Matt.13:24, 27, 37, just a few verses before and after Matt. 13:32, and also in 1 Cor. 15:38; 2 Cor. 9:10.) This sense is further suggested by the preceding verse, which speaks of a mustard seed which “a man took and planted in his field.” (Matthew 13:31) In THAT sense of “seed,” a sense common to the NT, Jesus' statement is, in fact, entirely accurate: the mustard seed is used in rabbinic writings when they need a reference to the smallest perceptible object (y. Ber. 5.8d, 36; b. Ber. 31A; Lev. Rab. 31.9; m. Nid. 5.2) and therefore seems to have been the smallest seed cultivated in NT times (the NIV has apparently adopted this meaning by translating “the smallest of all YOUR seeds.”) So there is not even an incidental affirmation of any factual error in Matthew 13:32.

Demoniacs: 1 or 2? – In history, in the event itself, there were 2 of these men, but Matthew had independent knowledge of the second man, whereas Mark and Luke did not. Mention of only one man by Mark and Luke presents no problem. Carson says, “Not only was one sufficient for the purpose at hand, but where one person is more remarkable or prominent, it is not uncommon for the Gospels to mention only that one.” We do this all the time today. “I saw John Smith in town today. I haven’t seen him in years” - even though both John and Mary Smith were seen. I realize that I have harmonized the 3 accounts here, Bill. That is not to say that there are no limits to harmonization, but we need to responsibly resort to this kind of thing before we DENY something that the scripture explicitly AFFIRMS. Perhaps you do not find my explanation convincing. Find another one, then – just as long as you do not impugn the character of inerrant scripture. As Carl Henry stresses, “evangelical scholars do not insist that historical realities conform to all their proposals for harmonization; their intent; rather, is to show that their premises do not cancel the logical possibility of reconciling apparently divergent reports.” There are lots of tools at hand for us to use before resorting to a denial of what scripture attests about itself: we may use text criticism, linguistics, historical context considerations, form criticism, redaction criticism and harmonization to wrestle with the problems that we face in the apparent discrepancies. However, even if we could not figure out what was going on in a particular passage, we STILL cannot stand in judgment over the scripture; it stands in judgment over US! We confirm to IT, not make it conform to OUR understandings. I appreciate that is this is a basic presupposition that influences my side in this conversation. You have your own. As Paul Simon wrote, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” But what I am stressing is that sinful human beings, their minds and understandings distorted by the noetic effects of the Fall, can't take that kind of attitude to holy scripture's self attesting authority and claims to inerrancy.

Satan or God?(2 Samuel text) This is a MASSIVE topic and relates to evil, man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty. You would do well to read D.A. Carson's “How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil”. It is hands down the best book you could read on this subject. I know this man is not a popular writer with the emergent crowd, but this book is something that cannot be overlooked. Here, in condensed form, is one of the chapters from that book that helped me greatly understand this issue.
Compatibilism (Both of the following propositions are true at the same time)

1) God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility is curtailed, minimized or mitigated.
2) Human beings are morally responsible creatures – they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions and so forth, and they are rightly held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent (secondary, a responder, a reactor, dependent upon us in some sense)

God is absolutely sovereign: (All texts are from the NIV)

Ps. 115:2-3: “Why do the nations say, “Where is their God?” Our God is in heaven and he does whatever pleases him.”
Ps. 135:6 “The Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and in all their depths.”
Eph 1:11: “In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity to the purpose of his will . . .”
Acts 17:26 “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.”

God's sovereignty even includes unintentional manslaughter and family misfortune, both being related to the will of God.

Ex. 21:12-13 “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.”
Ruth 1:13, 20 (Naomi, regarding the death of her husband and sons) The Lord's hand has gone out against me . “Don't call me Naomi” she told them. “Call me Mara, because the Almighty has made my life very bitter.”

Nor is the human will exempt form God's sovereign sway.

Proverbs 16:9 “In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps.”
Jer. 10:23 “I know, O Lord, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps.”
Ps. 105:24-25 “The Lord made his people [the nation of Israel] very fruitful; he made them too numerous for their foes [the Egyptians] whose hearts he turned to hate his people, to conspire against his servants.”
Is. 45:6-7; I am the Lord and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster/calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.”
Lam 3:37-38: “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”
Rom 9:18 [with reference to Pharaoh] “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”

Note: God's hardening is an action that renders a person insensitive to God and his word and that, if not reversed, culminates in eternal damnation. It is important to note that BEFORE Pharaoh is first said to harden his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32), God TWICE predicts that that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 4:21; 7:3) and there are also 3 references, in the passive voice, to Pharaoh’s heart being hardened. The understood subject of these passive verbs is God. (7:13, 14, 22)

Now, the most remarkable feature of these passages – and there are scores and scores more just like them – is that at no point is the human agent exonerated of responsibility just because God is in some way behind the act. It is imperative that we maintain side-by-side complementary truths. (1) God hardens whom he chooses; (2) human beings, because of sin, are responsible for their ultimate condemnation. Thus, God's bestowing of mercy and his hardening are not equivalent acts. God's mercy is given to those who DO NOT DESERVE IT; his hardening affects those who have already by their sin DESERVED CONDEMNATION.

Humans Are Responsible:

Josh 24:14-15 “Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the god's your forefathers worshipped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. But if serving the Lord seems undesirable for you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”
This is only one of countless passages where human beings are commanded to obey, or where they are entreated to do something or told to chose or take firm resolution.
The Ten Commandments have bite because they can be obeyed or disobeyed. The Gospel call itself lays down profound responsibility: Paul says in
Rom. 10:9, 11 “If you declare with your mouth “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved . . .as Scripture says, “anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
Yet nowhere does such material ever function to make God absolutely contingent, that is, absolutely dependent for his being or choices on the moves taken by human beings.
But what about sin? Despite everything it says about the limitless reaches of God's sovereignty, the bible insists again and again on God's unblemished goodness. God is NEVER presented as an accomplice to evil, or as secretly malicious or standing behind evil in exactly the same way he stands behind good.

God is Good

Deut. 32:4 “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.”
1 John 1:5 “God is light and in hi there is no darkness at all.”
Hab. 1:13a “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.”
In summery, God is 1) sovereign and 2) good, and 3) people are responsible for their actions and 4) held accountable for them.
In the selection of passages we are about to look at we are going to see how biblical compatibilism (see above definition) can be assumed or taught within concrete texts. One can find the tensions between the two propositions within the same contexts.
Compatibilism Texts:
Gen 50:19-20 “But Joseph said to [his brothers], “Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”
This text is not saying that God turned it all around after his brothers did bad because he is such a good cosmic chess player. Or that God intended Joseph to be driven in a limousine to Egypt but his brothers mucked it up, but God is a good cosmic chess player and was able to turn it all around. God was working sovereignly in the event of his being sold into Egypt, but the brother’s guilt is not thereby lessened (they intended harm); the brothers were responsible for their actions, but God was not thereby reduced to a merely contingent, reactionary, role; and while the brothers intentions were evil, God himself had only good intentions.
Lev 20:7-8 “Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy.”
1 Kings 8:46-58
Is. 10:5-17 (THIS IS A STUNNING TEXT)
Phil 2:12-13 “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed – not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence – continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to act according to his good purpose.”

This text does not say that God has done his bit in your salvation and now it is up to you. Still less does it suggest that because God is working in you “to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose” that you should therefore be entirely passive and simply let him take over. Nor is it that God has done the work of justification in you, and now you must continue in your own sanctification. Paul describes that the Philippians must do as obeying what it is he has to say, and as working out (not working FOR!) their own salvation. The assumption is that choice and effort are required. The “working out” of their salvation includes honestly pursuing the same attitude as that of Christ (2:5) learning to do everything the gospel demands without complaining or arguing (2:14) and much more. But at the same time they must learn that it is God himself who is at work in the “TO WILL AND TO ACT in order to fulfill his good purpose.” God's sovereignty extends over both their willing and their actions. Indeed, far from being embarrassed by this candid compatibilism, Paul sees in God's sovereignty an incentive to encourage the Philippians on their way. “Work out your own salvation,” he tells them, “FOR it is God who works in you.” God's sway in their lives is, for Paul, not a DISincentive to action but an INCENTIVE: get in step with what God is doing.
Acts 4:23-31 (What if we were only to admit one half of this agasint the other??) – if the initiative had been entirely with the conspirators, and God simply came in at the last minute like a good chess player and thwarted their plans, then the cross was not in HIS plan from the beginning. If, on the other hand, God is so orchestrating things as to make human beings non-responsible puppets, then it is foolish to speak of conspiracy or sin.

Compatibilism explored – We now know that compatibilism is true (or that scripture teaches it, which is the same thing) but HOW is it true? How does it work out in practice. Just like the inspiration of scripture, we don’t know. But we do know that there is no necessary contradiction between the two points of compatibilism. But it means I am still going to be left with mystery when I am finished. All that I hope to achieve is to locate those mysteries more precisely and show that they are big enough to allow me to claim that when the bible assumes compatibilism it is not adopting nonsensical positions.

If compatibilism true, then God stands behind evil and good asymmetrically. (Bill this relates directly to the passage from 2 Samuel.)

Not even evil takes place outside the bounds of God's sovereignty, yet the evil is not morally chargeable to him: it is always chargeable to secondary agents and causes (Assyrians attacking Samaria).

On the other hand, God stands behind good in such a way that it not only takes place within the bounds of his sovereignty, but it is ALWAYS chargeable to him, and only derivatively to secondary agents.

Is this all too convenient for God? That is the only God there is. That is the God of the bible.

The new Evangelical Manifesto says of Scripture:

"We place our emphasis on...The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice." The full version says, "We believe that Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired Word, make the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice."

Interesting what it says and doesn't say. The whole document is interesting:
http://www.evangelicalmanifesto.com/manifesto.php