An Analysis of the Belhar Confession, Part 2

September 16, 2009 at 7:37 am (Bible, Church)

In this post, I will analyze section 1 and part of section 2. Again, the link to the BC is here.

Section one is fairly unobjectionable, really. One thing struck me as a tad odd: the combination “Word and Spirit.” In most Reformed theology, Word and Spirit are almost assumed to belong together, for the Spirit always operates through the Word. So, there is nothing wrong with this pairing. It is just that when I hear “Word” I always also hear “Spirit.” I was actually expecting “Word and Sacrament.” For the Sacraments are certainly part of what God uses to gather in His saints. This is not really a quibble with the document at this point. But I do think that the Sacraments are important in how God gathers His saints. And this is certainly NOT to say that the Spirit is unimportant.

Section 2, initial statement is really only a restatement of the Apostles Creed and is therefore unobjectionable.

The first bullet paragraph has a problem. I am not comfortable saying that the Gospel strictly includes reconciliation with one another. I think that is a necessary consequence of the Gospel. (In fact it is so necessary that without reconciliation with one another, we are to question whether we are reconciled to God; confer the parable of the unmerciful servant). However, the Gospel itself is reconciliation with God by means of justification by faith alone. This is the Gospel in the strictest sense. One may legitimately broaden the definition of the Gospel to include the Good News concerning the believer’s entire life, although one must be careful to distinguish between the broader, looser meaning, and the stricter, narrower meaning. That clarity is lacking in this first paragraph.

The second bullet paragraph seems to assert a synergy on the question of the unity of the church. This synergy means, in effect, that God and man must work together for the peace and unity of the church. The exact language of the Belhar is “gift and obligation.” They describe church unity as, in effect, both a gift and a goal. To a certain extent, this is correct. The unity of the church is given by the Spirit. It is accomplished through the finished work of Christ. What is not clear is how the Spirit’s work co-exists alongside what man must do. There is no care here to walk the tightrope between antinomianism and legalism. But since the Belhar has defined church unity as part of the Gospel, this becomes a concern. And, as we have already stated, there are two possible ways of using the term “Gospel,” a broader and a narrower. We are not clear as to which way the Belhar is using the term.

The third paragraph I will quote in full, as it is one of the most problematic statements in the Belhar:

that this unity must become visible so that the world may believe that
separation, enmity and hatred between people and groups is sin which
Christ has already conquered, and accordingly that anything which
threatens this unity may have no place in the church and must be resisted;

The statement that the unity must become visible is ambiguous. Does this mean an organizational unity, as in the Roman Catholic Church, or does it mean simply that our “getting along” becomes visible? Given that the clarifying result clause specifies that the world may believe, in effect, that Christian really do love each other (and that statement is also questionable: the world will always misunderstand the church), one might assume that more than mere “getting along” is meant here. Now, I am not opposed to greater visible unity in the church. Neither am I opposed to the seeking of it diligently. However, we must not let a drive for greater visible unity hamper the already present invisible unity of the church.

Furthermore, the statement that will cause the most trouble is the final clause. This final clause places unity at a more foundational place in the church than truth. This should not be. Truth and love are equally foundational in the church. As soon as unity becomes more foundational, truth suffers. This clause will be used by homosexual advocacy groups, for instance, to say that homosexuals are part of the church and entitled to church unity, and that kicking them out will be an attack on church unity. One could argue that the South African church already dealt with this problem by forbidding such an interpretation of the Belhar. That does not guarantee that North American church will do the same. One could also argue that the rest of the document limits the threat to racism alone. That may be the case, but it is not forced from this particular paragraph, which has no qualifier whatsoever. In short, this statement is broad enough to drive a truck through it.

6 Comments

The Lens of Confessions Revisited

September 6, 2009 at 10:19 pm (Bible, Federal Vision, Heresy, Reformed, Theology, Westminster standards)

Posted by Bob Mattes

Lane wrote an excellent post Who’s Lens Are You Using? Unfortunately, the comments were hijacked by a Protestant/RCC/Eastern Orthodox debate on authority. OTOH, Federal Visionists took the discussion on their blogs in the direction I would have expected. I thought that I would try to bring the discussion back on point with this post and address the Federal Visionists’ blatant biblicism.

There are two critical points of clarification that I feel need to be made up front, and will address again later in this post. First, in the USA, anyone can believe whatever they want, interpret the Scriptures how ever they wish – and they certainly do. However, you cannot be an elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and believe things contrary to the theological standards of that fellowship. That should be self-evident, but seems a difficult concept for some. Second, there is an established process to modify the PCA Standards, and using that process is the honest approach to disagreements with or about the Standards. More on those points later. First on the lens concept.

Lane wrote:

Let’s put it this way: everyone has lenses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate.

What could be more obvious? Everything passes through our perceptual, cultural, intellectual, etc., filters. One of the primary things that makes denominations different is the lenses they use for Scriptural interpretation.

Historically, the church has used confessions both as statements of what it believes and as the lens through which Scripture is interpreted, of course illuminated by the Holy Spirit. Orthodox Christian creeds and confessions originate through particular exegeses of the Scriptures, and are always subordinate thereto. There is no shortage of confessions and statements of faith within the Christian denominational family. The PCA adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith along with the catechisms as its lens.

As Lane pointed out, there’s always a danger that the lens could be elevated to the level of Scripture. This is certainly being alleged by some Federal Visionists. But from its beginning, the PCA made it clear that, although the Westminster Standards “contained the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures,” they are subordinate to Scripture. The BCO defines the PCA’s Constitution thusly:

The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which is subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word Of God, consists of its doctrinal standards set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of Government, the Rules of Discipline and the Directory for Worship; all as adopted by the Church.

There’s no question about where the PCA stands on this issue, and any attempts to say otherwise constitutes a red herring that ignores the plain fact. Yet, this is exactly the tact routinely taken by Federal Visionists.

One FVer accuses Lane of quasi-Roman Catholic theology, a recurring theme from that quarter. Another declares the use of the Standards as a lens Romanism, Presbyterian Style. I had to chuckle reading those posts, wondering if these individuals slept through Seminary. These FV posts display a remarkable ignorance of how confessions have been used in the Christian Church since Peter’s very first one: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Certainly the early creeds – Apostles’, Nicene, etc. – provided lenses through which Scripture was interpreted, especially to counter the heretics of those days who interpreted Scripture to suit their own tastes. The Westminster Confession serves exactly that purpose today – and perhaps that’s the real issue between Federal Visionists and the Confession.

Let’s take a quick look at how the orthodox Reformed have historically viewed the Standards. Robert Shaw, author of An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, summed the issue of the confession as a lens best in 1845:

The Christian Church, as a divine institution, takes the Word of God alone, and the whole Word of God, as her only rule of faith; but she must also frame and promulgate a statement of what she understands the Word of God to teach. This she does, not as arrogating any authority to suppress, change, or amend anything that God’s Word teaches, but in discharge of the various duties which she owes to God, to the world, and to those of her own communion. Since she has been constituted the depository of God’s truth, it is her duty to him to state, in the most distinct and explicit terms, what she understands that truth to mean. In this manner she not only proclaims what God has said, but also appends her seal that God is true. Thus a Confession of Faith is not the very voice of divine truth, but the echo of that voice from souls that have heard its utterance, felt its power, and are answering to its call.

And, since she has been instituted for the purpose of teaching God’s truth to an erring world, her duty to the world requires that she should leave it in no doubt respecting the manner in which she understands the message which she has to deliver. Without doing so the Church would be no teacher, and the world might remain untaught, so far as she was concerned. For when the message had been stated in God’s own words, every hearer must attempt, according to the constitution of his own mind, to form some conception of what these words mean, and his conceptions may be very vague and obscure, or even very erroneous, unless some attempt be made to define, elucidate, and correct them. Nor, indeed, could either the hearers or the teachers know that they understood the truth alike, without mutual statements and explanations with regard to the meaning which they respectively believe it to convey.

Still further, the Church has duty to discharge to those of its own communion. To them she must produce a form of sound words, in order both to promote and confirm their knowledge, and also to guard them against the hazard of being led into errors; and, as they must be regarded as all agreed, with respect to the main outline of the truths which they believe, they are deeply interested in obtaining some security that those who are to become their teachers in future generations shall continue to teach the same divine and saving truths. The members of any Church must know each other’s sentiments—must combine to hold them forth steadily and consistently to the notice of all around them, as witnesses for the same truths; and must do their utmost to secure that the same truths shall be taught by all its ministers, and to all candidates for admission. For all these purposes the formation of a Creed, or Confession of Faith, is imperatively necessary; and thus it appears that a Church cannot adequately discharge its duty to God, to the world, and to its own members, without a Confession of Faith. [my emphasis]

I’ve not seen the Reformed case stated any better. Shaw directly addresses the Federal Visionist complaint. The FV posts cited also ignore the Scriptural exegesis behind the Standards that was done in great detail by the Westminster Divines and their theological predecessors.

Which brings me to the first point I made above. All PCA teaching elders must answer the following question (amongst others) in the affirmative on their  ordination:

Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?

So, as I stated earlier, in the USA one can believe as one wishes. One can worship ferrets and sacrifice raisinetes to them. However, one cannot become or remain an elder in the PCA unless one freely affirms that the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms contain the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture. The BCO does not say that you can rewrite or reinterpret the Standards to fit the latest theological fad.

Which brings me to point two and my standard challenge to those who use specious arguments to falsely pitting Scripture against the Westminster Standards. The polity of the PCA provides a procedure for making changes the Standards. If, as one prominent Federal Visionist publicly advocated, one wishes to rewrite Chapter 7 of the Confession, then put in an overture to the General Assembly for debate and action. It’s that simple, but it does take a measure of courage.

I’ve made this challenge for the last several years, yet for all the bits expended on Federal Vision blogs, none has stepped forward with a relevant overture. Hmm…

Posted by Bob Mattes

141 Comments

A Response On Roman Catholicism

June 29, 2009 at 10:00 am (Bible, Church, Communion, Justification, Roman Catholicism)

Here is a brief response to Bryan, and a somewhat longer response to Taylor. First Bryan.

Truth is not really what I’m talking about. I’m talking about authority. Here is a quotation from Lumen Gentium that argues precisely what I said the RCC is arguing for:

And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith. (I have removed the footnotes; the passage comes from paragraph 25).

This is saying that even the Bible cannot be a final court of appeal against an official ex cathedra statement from the Pope or from the supreme magisterium. They have infallibility. This is claiming infallibility for the words of mere men, and putting their words on a par with Scripture. It doesn’t matter if that isn’t what they think they are doing, that is what they are doing. On an ex cathedra matter, there is no court of appeal beyond the Pope, not even Scripture. To say that this paragraph says otherwise is to deny the plain meaning of the text. And this paragraph is cited in section 891 of the Catechism, which says the same thing. In fact, the Catechism even claims that “this infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself” (then it references Lumen Gentium 25). That phrase is explained by another section of paragraph 25 of LG:

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.

As to the intercession from dead saints, I agree that it depends on the prior question of the canon. A subject for a different post.

As to transubstantiation, the Catechism clearly states that the substance of the bread and wine change into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (see paragraphs 1374-1377). The substance of the bread and wine are therefore transformed. But the form of bread and wine remain. How is this not saying that the substance has changed, but the accidents of bread and wine (the outer form) remain? In which you have the substance of Christ taking the place of bread and wine, and yet the accidents of bread and wine remaining. As I have said, this is a misappropriation of Aristotle’s categories. And Aquinas, in question 75, most certainly does assert that the substance changes into Christ’s body and blood, while the accidents of bread and wine remain (see especially article 6, where he responds to the objections levelled against that doctrine: it should be noted that the objections come first, and then follow his response to those objections). Therefore, my original comment stands.

As to the death of Christians, I do not believe that a non-believer would be freed from sin at death, because his soul is not raised from death to life. Only those whose souls have been raised from death to life (see this progression in Ephesians 2 especially) will have the guarantee that their sin nature will die at their death. So, Bryan’s comment does not follow, because he is forgetting the requirement of the prior resurrection of the soul.

Now, on to Taylor’s comments. First of all, the difference between the words “inspired” and “infallible” is not relevant to my argument in the slightest. If they claim infallibility, then they are setting up the words of men as on a par with Scripture, regardless of whether or not they regard the human words as inspired or not. Secondly, the three verses have everything to do with “Scripture alone,” because they claim that the words of Scripture are sufficient for the Christian to be well-equipped. This is the doctrine that Taylor does not understand. Is the church helpful? Sure. Is the church necessary for the Christian to be a member of it? Sure. Does this necessity mean that Scripture is not sufficient? No. Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith and practice. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 draws a contrast between the words of men and the words of God. This means that the words of men do not effective work in a person to believe, as the end of the verse says. Only the Word of God does that. One is reminded of the words of Isaiah: “they teach as doctrines and commandments the words of men.” This is a stinging rebuke. No word of man has the authority that the word of God has. 1 John 5:9 indicates that the word of God is greater than the word of men. Period. There can be no parity. There can be no claim of infallibility on the part of any man, acting in any capacity whatsoever.

On the issue of Mary as Mediatrix, Lumen Gentium (paragraphs 60, 62, quoted in Catechism 970) does say what Taylor says about the position of Mary: it’s still wrong. Those who are dead cannot intercede on behalf of the living. That is why it is so important for us to see that Christ is alive. He can intercede for us, because He’s alive. As Hebrews says (I’m sure he had a smile on his face when he wrote this), the Old Testament priests were many, because death prevented them from continuing in office, Heb. 7:23. Yes, death would be a substantial disqualification from ministry. But if they could still intercede on our behalf, then they could still be priests.

On justification, of course the Roman Catholic church teaches a repeatable justification: this is because it is conflated with sanctification. But justification does occur at baptism. My words did not imply that that was the only time it happened in Catholic teaching. One cannot say everything every time one issues a summary. But Catholics do teach that one is justified at baptism, and so my words were not a lie of any sort.

On 1 Corinthians 6:11, of course justification is associated with washing: the blood of Christ cleanses us from the guilt of our sin, and that happens in justification. The verb, however, does not mean baptism in and of itself. Paul could have said “you were baptized.” Instead, he says “you were washed.” There is nothing in the context to indicate baptism. And the use of three terms does not mean that they should be conflated. The aorist use of these verbs does not help Taylor’s position, since they do NOT indicate a process. Paul is emphatically contrasting the previous state of his readers with the subsequent state. That change was marked by three verbs that describe different aspects of that change. So Paul is NOT talking about progressive sanctification here. By the way, Calvin can treat sanctification before justification too, as he in fact does in the Institutes. What’s the point? The beginning of sanctification occurs at the same point in time as justification. But they are distinct, because works play no part in justification, and yet are the distinctive fruit of sanctification. I do not think that Taylor has done justice to the careful exegesis of this passage. I will treat the remaining questions in another post.

124 Comments

Inerrancy vs. the god Objectivity

June 22, 2009 at 5:17 am (Bible, Inerrancy, Uncategorized)
Tags: ,

In light of the conversation here, I’ve been planning this post for a few weeks now. Frankly, I’ve been concerned that “younger” evangelicals are bothered by the appearance of secular sourced evidence that “proves” the Bible contains errors. I’ve been there and continue to face this challenge.

I note in many of their questions and comments an underlying angst. They are frustrated, in part, because the old inspiration-inerrancy-infallibility triad seems fatally broken by unquestionable secular evidence. They try to couch this in terms of “determining how the Bible is authoritative,” all the while dismissing the intra-Biblical evidences for its inerrancy.

In reality, it seems at least to me, they are bowing before the Secular god of Objectivity. I read in them an unacknowledged (somewhat unaware) allegiance to the supremacy of rationalism over God himself. I realize they will argue differently. Still …

I simply want to remind them, or possibly introduce some of them, to the wisdom of our forefathers who already faced the challenge of the god Objectivity, and found the Bible’s own answer to slay it. It is found in the Westminster Confession’s first chapter, on the Bible:

WCF 1.5 We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture, (1Ti 3:15 1) and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God;

yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts. (1Jh 2:20,27; Jh 16:13,14; 1Co 2:10,11,12; Isa 59:21.)

Note that we can acknowledge the “under the Sun” rational evidences for the Bible’s claim to being God’s word. Yet our only full assurance of this fact, the only objectivity we have if you will, is subjectively sourced – it is the Spirit’s own witness in our hearts that we (objectively) know these things to be true.

What this means for inerrancy (and inspiration and infallibility) is at least:

1. We will always find our convictions here fatally challenged by any system which assumes man is the ultimate authority.
2. We can only be assured in our convictions by the Spirit’s work in us as individuals.

This is a curse: Objectivity went out the window when our first parents rebelled against the Author of Objectivity. It is because of the fall that we cannot, as mere men, know for sure. It is because of the fall that Secularism will always rise up with new, seemingly insurmountable challenges to the Bible as God’s word.

And a blessing: God graces his children with the removal of the curse, and restores to us a surety that surpasses mere knowledge. No antagonist, no enemy, no person set on destroying your faith can touch such surety. You will not find comfort in trying to come up with a scheme where God uses error to speak truth – it is in the end irrational because God has said so (in the Bible in particular.) You will, however, find comfort in resting in God’s own witness.

“Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible (affirmed by the Spirit) tells me so.”

- Reed DePace

Post-script: after reading some blogs of neo-errantists, I expect some will laugh at my assumption of their naivety concerning the Spirit’s inward witness. They will respond, “of course, and that’s how we know we know what we know (about the Bible) is right.”

Fair enough. The real question is not whether or not you or I say the Spirit confirms, especially that which we disagree on (inerrancy.) The question is what does the Bible say? After all, it is the only judge of who has the credible right to claim the Spirit’s amen to their convictions.

Two final thoughts I hope the neo-errantists will consider. 1) I’ve yet to see serious interaction with the biblical claims to inerrancy. Rather, you’ve offered little less than a dismissive comment or two.

2) Consider that in principle you have no basis for assuming anything in the Bible is inerrant. Or, putting aside the inerrancy angle for the sake of the discussion – your position has left you with no basis on which to affirm infallibility. Your position leaves no place for the objective work of God to authoritatively show itself. In principle, everything in the Bible, and therefore in the ministry of the Church, is left up to the autonomous opinion of the individual.

Your’s is a position which has removed the mantle of sacredness from the sacred Scriptures, and has lain it across the shoulders of the individual. Be ware the “demons” you let loose; they will not easily be re-caged.

201 Comments

Inerrancy & Humility

June 15, 2009 at 4:26 pm (Bible, Inerrancy, Uncategorized)
Tags: ,

This is just a quick comment about a phenomenon in this inerrancy discussion that disturbs me. It is particularly addressed to all those (young) men who find the orthodox inerrancy position untenable.

I have paid some attention to the blogs of those opposed to the orthodox view of inerrancy. There has been quite a bit of critique of my posts here and the comments. That is all well and good. I blog because I hope to have conversations with others that Christ might use to bless His Church.

I’ve been struck and saddened however by the great degree to which much of the criticism is wrong-headed. Y’all are both assuming things not said, and then working off that asusmption, offering criticisms that simply miss the mark. Your confident assertions of how right you are, and how wrong we are, give sad evidence of a serious lack of critical listening and judgment on your part.

I’m not writing to this vent. (My choice of words here would make it much more obvious if that was my intention.) Rather I’m posting this because I am concerned.

Many of you are young yet. I’m not disparaging your obvious intellectual skills. I willingly admit many of you are miles beyond me.

Rather I see you making young man’s mistake. You are so busy arguing against what you think is wrong that you are not really listening to your opponents. Quite frankly a number of you read what I’m saying as if I were an inflexible fundamentalist with a “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!” mentality.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Seriously, aside from a few of you who have commented here, you are so busy apply labels to me (and the others defending orthodox inerrancy) that you are justifying yourself in conclusions for which you have little support.

Asking questions, struggling with the issues is good. But to misread, and then mischaracterize, and on that basis conclude, “Therefore my opinion is right,” is dangerous.

Let me end by hopefully offering a blessing:

Before destruction a man’s heart is haughty, but humility comes before honor. ~ Proverbs 18:12

With you, because of Christ, I am committed to pursuing his blessing of humility in this discussion.

107 Comments

Inerrancy & the Language of Accommodation

June 15, 2009 at 4:06 pm (Bible, Inerrancy, Uncategorized)
Tags: , ,

My oldest daughter is working through Calvin’s Institutes as part of a multi-year homeschool course. I have the joy of (re)reading along with her. While reading something on providence (last part of book 1), I stopped at a comment by Calvin concerning the language of accommodation in the Bible. This got me thinking about this whole topic in relation to the discussion here.

Enns’ (et.al.) suggest that the use of error in the Bible (at least some) is an accommodation by God to the pre-scientific understanding of the original readers. E.g., God used ANE cosmogonies in Gen 1-11, not because they were historically factual, but because this was how Moses’ exodus generation had learned to think about such topics. The argument goes that in order to help his people understand the (underlying) spiritual truth of the text God accommodated his communication to their own erroneous scientific understanding.

I’d like to challenge this via the issue of God’s accommodating language.

First, it seems apparent that God does accommodate some of his communication in the Bible to the limits of human readers. The use of anthropomorphic descriptions of God fits this principle. E.g., God’s “hand” is such a use, ascribing physical qualities to a spiritual being for the sake of our understanding. I.e., such texts are not really saying God as Spirit has a real physical hand, but merely using that to describe an otherwise incomprehensible attribute in terms we recognize.

Second this is accommodation is not the same as what Enns (et.al.) is talking about. I think the critical difference, the distinguishing characteristic is seen the distinction between the transcendent nature of God’s being, and the immanent nature of the Cosmos. Usually this is described as the difference between God’s infiniteness and our finiteness.

Here’s the contrast:

> God uses language of accommodation for any subject that falls under the heading of transcendence. He does so because our finiteness limits our ability to understand his infiniteness.
> Contrarily, God does not use accommodating language for any subject within the realm of our finiteness, literally the created cosmos. This is because all such subjects are within our created abilities to understand.

Look at this from another angle. Enns (et.al.) posit God’s accommodating our fallenness in his communication. I.e., it is not because we are finite that we cannot understand the nature of creation, historical fact, etc. Rather (according to Enns) because the fall makes us prone to error, God willingly accommodates his communication of truth to our error-proneness.

Hopefully y’all will see that this goes completely contrary to the whole intention of God’s communication in the Bible:

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

- Reed DePace

7 Comments

How Trustworthy is That?

June 6, 2009 at 5:44 pm (Bible, Inerrancy, Myth, OT-Genesis, Romans)
Tags: , ,

In these discussions on the supposed errors in the Bible there is an unacknowledged gorilla in the room. (See Incoherent Inerrancy, Who Ya Gonna Believe, There’s Accommodation, and then There’s …?, and Check Your Facts!, God.)

Specifically it is the question of Creation as reported in Gn 1:1-2:4. For those who affirm an error-laden-inerrancy, this is the really big error in the Bible. After all, Secular Science has all but proven that evolution, both biological and cosmological, is the unquestionable fact.

Sitting in classes at WTS, it was this problem that most exercised the “young evangelicals” around me (I was in my later 30’s when I went to WTS.) Enns’ solution (God’s accommodation to man’s errors) was the “cage” that finally contained this gorilla for a number of them. I daresay, caging this particular gorilla has been at the forefront of the “error-problems” of many of the errantists participating in this blog. (I could be wrong, but …)

I admit to appreciating the angst of younger evangelicals concerning this subject. Popular culture is a serious idol to go up against. One is foolish to do so with any weapon but the honest to goodness sword of truth. If in some way Gn 1:1-2:4 on the face of it acts to dull the sword of truth, by all means let’s fix this.

The problem again begins with one’s presuppositions. I for one am not ready to crown Secular Science with inerrancy and infallibility. Meteorologists still get it wrong, crops still fail, people still die. I.e., Secular Science has a long way to go before it can claim the inerrancy/infallibility that is inherent in God’s being and His word. Thus I see the seriousness of the challenge.

But there is something more important than being laughed at by a bunch of mocking unbelievers who think any of my convictions are just so much evidence of my weak mind and foolishness. I’m not ready to conclude that God has used error to communicate some of the most critical truths in the Bible.

Assume for the sake of discussion that God’s creation account accommodates itself to the errors of the ANE cosmogonies common during Moses recording of Genesis. That is, God had Moses not record a factually accurate account, but specifically used the erroneous ANE’s creation myths as the basis for his creation story.

O.k. then, let’s deal with the question of trustworthiness, of reliability. Assuming that the account is not all pure myth (error), how do we determine what parts are true? Not what parts are true, but what hermeneutical principle(s), found in the Bible itself, will enable us to reliably determine what parts are true and can be counted upon to be trustworthy?

I dare so you will search in vain for such hermeneutical tools.

The structure of Genesis (i.e., the waw-consecutive) requires that we read the succeeding stories as one whole cloth with the creation story. But let’s limit our questioning to Gn 2-3. If the creation story is error-laden, then on what basis are we to prove that Adam is historical? If we do not have a historical Adam, then what of the Fall? I.O.W., following the necessarily logic of the error-laden-inerrancy reading of Gn 1:1-2:4, we are left concluding that Adam and the Fall are nothing more than myth, and that God used these errors to rhetorically communicate some “truth” in these passages.

Take this to its next necessary connection, Romans 5:12-20. If Adam and the Fall are merely rhetorical, then Jesus’ atonement is as well. There is no other conclusion we can reach. Get this, beginning with the presupposition that Secular Science must be right, and the Bible’s creation account must be an accommodation with the ANE error-laden creation myths, we end up with nothing more than a rhetorical atonement.

How trustworthy is that?

- Reed DePace

129 Comments

Check Your Facts!, God

June 2, 2009 at 9:08 am (Bible, Inerrancy, OT-Daniel)
Tags: , ,

I enjoy listening to the hubristic claims by some in the media that they only report the truth; that they are rigorous in checking their facts, and so their reports can be trusted. Then someone comes along with impeccable evidence that proves the inerrant reporter is made of clay like the rest of us.

The brothers following the trajectory of Dr. Enns in Inspiration and Incarnation would have us believe that God is very much a clay-e-reporter. They do so with the intention of encouraging us that he is trustworthy after all. (More can be read on this in the previous posts, Incoherent Inerrancy, Who Ya Gonna Believe, and There’s Accommodation, and then There’s …?.)

Huh? God knowingly communicates in the Bible via errors, and this makes him more, not less trustworthy?

In this post I want to offer some suggestions to counter this irrationality. Contrary to the position that says we have to live with the fact that the Bible is filled with errors, there are perfectly rational alternative explanations for the (supposed) errors in the Bible, alternatives that do not begin with the presupposition: God trustworthily communicates truth via error.

I do not propose to offer any “proof” here. (I think there are reasons why God does not offer us proof – a future post will address that topic.)

Rather I propose to offer perfectly reasonable alternatives; alternatives which presuppose God trustworthily communicates truth inerrantly. I hope to show that there is no need to bow before the unbelieving higher-critical scholars, and then try to come up with a position of error-laden inerrancy.

Let’s use Daniel 9:1 one as our example passage (ESV): In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans-

The problem, according the errantists is that ancient near eastern (ANE) historical sources prove that this is wrong. These ANE sources prove that there never was a Persian king named Darius who was the son of Ahasuerus. Thus, the Bible must be wrong.

I’ll leave it others to list all the viable alternatives to assuming the Bible is wrong. Instead, I want to put the shoe on the other foot. Which is more plausible, that the Bible is wrong here, or that the ANE sources are wrong? Here are three common characteristics of secular historical sources, characteristics which mark their errancy and fallibility.

ANE Name Usage

Ancient naming practices were not as controlled as our modern western name process – recorded on the birth certificate it is as good written in stone! Not so in the ANE. Like any culture, ANE cultures used names in a variety of ways naming individuals, that when recorded in history, can lead to confusion.

E.g., sometimes a given name of one important person becomes an honorific title for others following after him. “Caesar” was one of Julius’s personal family names. With his successor and nephew, Augustus “Caesar” this name became a title ascribed to all succeeding Roman emperors (and their titular descendents in Germany, “Kaiser” and Russia, “Czar”.)

Sometimes someone just did something that added a name to his names. I’m sure most American readers will know who I mean when I say I love the Duke. (Movie actor John Wayne for those amongst us who have not had the cultural development of the rest of us ;-).) It would be easy 500 years from now, with spotty records from our period, to get confused: John Wayne, Duke, Marion Morrison (John’s birth name) – are we talking one guy, two guys, three guys, etc.?

Other times adoption, political maneuvers, critical societal shifts, etc., resulted in names being associated with individuals that were not well documented in historical records. E.g., there is some evidence that “Ahasuerus” was something of a titular name that was assumed as a part of the names ascribed to a Persian king.

Whether or not this is the explanation is not the point. What is the point is that there is sufficient evidence from ANE sources to provide plausible naming explanations for Dan. 9:1.

Spotty Historical Records

Of course, those who believe the ANE sources that “prove” Dan 9:1 is an error, are assuming that these secular sources are themselves inerrant! Yet history is replete with examples of such inerrancy assumptions being proven false.

One of the best examples is the claim that Belshazzar was not the last king of Babylon, and that Daniel was wrong in calling him so. After all, “inerrant” ANE secular sources “proved” that Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king.

That was until some ANE records turned up that explained that Nabonidus had appointed his son Belshazzar to be his regent, his “king-in-fact” in Babylon while he went off to fight an enemy. So what of all those claims that the Bible was proved wrong by these ANE records? Ooops …

Again, I’m not claiming this is the explanation for Dan 9:1. I am challenging the presupposition that the ANE records are inerrant. Why do we need to assume that the Bible must be wrong? It is just as likely that the historical record is spotty, that there is information missing from the ANE sources.

Propaganda History

The cliché “the victor write the history,“ is not always true. Sometimes the loser writes it, and he is believed.

My favorite example of this is the supposed victory of Ramses II over the Hittites at Kadesh in 1274 B.C. This was possibly the largest chariot battle ever fought in the ANE, with over 5,000 chariots involved. Due to the large amount of Egyptian records, it was commonly accepted that this was a stunning victory for Ramses II and the Egyptians.

That was, until Hittites records were discovered – and they told a significantly different story. In the end, scholars debate whether Ramses II secured a Pyrrhic victory (brought his army home, but did not capture Kadesh,) secured a draw with the Hittites, or suffered a stunning defeat.

So what of Ramses II’s claims of an overwhelming victory? Pure propaganda!

Now again, I’m not proposing such a solution for the question in Dan. 9:1. I am pointing out that ANE sources are just as likely to be nothing more than propaganda, lies intended to serve political ends, as they are accurate historical records.

I’ve given these three examples, again not as solutions to the “apparent” error in Dan. 9:1. Rather I’m seeking to make one simple point. The ANE cultures whose historical records “prove” that the Bible has errors in it were cultures just like ours, filled with error-prone people.

On what basis do we presuppose that these sources are more trustworthy than the Bible? If the Bible were nothing more than another ANE record written by error-prone men, well then of course it would be no different, and equally as likely to be in error as the contradicting secular sources.

However, we’re talking about God’s record here. Do we really want to presume that God needs to check his facts?

- Reed DePace

24 Comments

There’s Accommodation, and then There’s …?

May 27, 2009 at 9:25 am (Bible, Inerrancy, Myth, Uncategorized)

I remember sitting in class at WTS listening to Dr. Enns explain his experience with unbelieving professors and their intellectual challenge to his faith. He expressed that he was particularly shaken by the strength of their attack on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. His solution (my assessment of what I heard) was to accommodate himself to some of the presuppositions of his unbelieving, higher-critical professors at Harvard (-ahhhhd.)

In this post I want to focus on Enns’ (et. al.) notion of accommodation. I am using this term in a two-fold sense: 1) the accommodation Enns makes to unbelieving higher-critical (UHC) scholars, and 2) the accommodation Enns believes God makes in the Bible.

Enns’ Accommodation to UHC Scholars

Enns in principle accepts the affirmation from UHC scholars that extra-biblical sources of information provide irrefutable evidence that that Bible contains demonstrable falsehoods and mistakes. That is, the Bible contains provable factual errors.

Further these are not immaterial errors. Rather these are non-incidental errors; they are in things that matter to the exegesis of the doctrines of Scripture. (See Incoherent Inerrancy and Who Ya Gonna Believe for further explanation on these topics.)

Thus Enns begins with the presupposition that the Bible necessarily records things for which there is no other way to describe them but as errors. Accordingly, if he is going to maintain any semblance of belief in inerrancy, he must re-define it. This is what he attempts to do in the second sense of accommodation.

God’s Accommodation to Man

It is true that man himself is prone to error. He is prone to: 1) believing things that are not true, 2) teaching others to believe these false beliefs; and 3) building his life on these false beliefs. In God’s mercy, error-prone man actually achieves some degree of success via his error-laden convictions.

Enns’ argues that God accommodates his communication in the Bible to this error-proneness of man. This is not the accommodation position of Calvin and historic reformed doctrine (e.g., anthropomorphic language) in which God communicates the otherwise incomprehensibleness of his own being in terms that are comprehensible to us, but are not therefore premised on falsehoods or mistakes.

No, the accommodation Enns argues for is God knowing use of man’s erroneous understanding. The BIG example is found in Gn 1:1-2:4 (and other creational passages); where God (supposedly) accommodates his explanation of his sovereignty in creation to man’s (scientifically) erroneous understanding. Other material examples are scattered throughout the Bible, often historical “errors” in which the Biblical data does not match what secular knowledge has proven to be true.

The key to demonstrating that this accommodation is actually occurring in the Bible is not the narrowly the contradicting secular sourced information. No, it is a presupposition flowing what is called comparative religious studies. Particularly, the myths and legends of ancient near eastern (ANE) civilizations, civilizations that are neighbors to ancient Israel (in time and location), demonstrate (apparent) similarities wth corresponding Biblical passages. These (apparent) similarities are used by Enns to demonstrate that God was not trying to express himself factually accurately. Rather, he was using the cultural errors common to his people (the broader ANE cultural mileu, the historical-societal environment) to explain to them his truths in terms acceptable to their limited (error-prone) intellectual capacities.

In other words, these ANE myths/legends serve as the solution to the problem of how to maintain inerrancy in the presence of the Bible’s errors. God was merely accommodating himself to speak truth via the errors with which man was comfortable.

Aside from the fact that the supposed similarities between the ANE myths/legends is highly overrated; and aside from the fact that there is a better explanation for any similarities that do exist (corrupted transfer of fact), consider where this principle of accommodation leaves us:

God used stories he knew to be filled with non-incidental errors as the basis for his communication of the same “history,” with the intention of giving us a trustworthy record. He used known (to him) errors to communicate trustworthy truth.

Boiling it down to the critical focus, as the whole Bible has a Christocentric (Christ is the center) purpose, or as Enns prefers, a Christotelic (Christ is the goal) purpose, then – God used ANE superhero comic book stories to convince us that Jesus really is The Superhero!

There’s accommodation, and then there’s …?

- Reed DePace

126 Comments

Who Ya Gonna Believe?!

May 23, 2009 at 6:04 pm (Bible, Inerrancy, Uncategorized)
Tags: , ,

The interaction on the previous post (Incoherent Inerrancy) has been both irenic and helpful. In my estimation, our brothers who no longer affirm the orthodox doctrine of inerrancy proved the point of my post (their assumed objections notwithstanding.)

Yesterday at breakfast my wife and I discussed this thread. Imagine what it’s like eating scrambled eggs trying to make the conversation of a bunch of eggheads palatable. That mental sweat led me to come up with a few additional posts that I hope might focus things for readers here; things they might not have the background or time to track with. This is the first of these “focusing” posts.

In my estimation the most significant issue focusing the differences between the two positions here (error-laden inerrancy, eLi, and error-free inerrancy, eFi) is that of presuppositions. In question form, what are the principles, presumed undeniably true, which function as the starting point and interpretive control for each position? These unquestioned principles are critical because they determine how each position understands the issue of inerrancy. If a presupposition is wrong, then the conclusions reached by that position will be flawed as well.

So, for each position, let me list the key presuppositions. I’m not proposing to list all of these, just the ones that focus the critical difference between both positions. I believe this will lead us to the vital question in this whole discussion, one that each of us must answer when reading our own Bibles.

eLi Presuppositions

1. Man’s knowledge challenges the veracity of some Biblical passages. There are two key sources for this knowledge: scientific knowledge and historical knowledge (historical records, archeology, etc.)
2. This knowledge is undeniably true. It is not merely rational, but this knowledge has objectively been proven to be unquestionably true.
3. Therefore the Biblical passages which disagree with this knowledge must be in error.
4. Therefore the Bible must teach some sort of error-laden inerrancy (eLi.)

Following these presuppositions, proponents of eLi argue that all they are about is letting the Bible explain for itself how it uses errors, and yet itself is still inerrant. (Some proponents have abandoned inerrancy altogether, focusing solely on showing that the (supposed) errors in the Bible do not detract from its infallibility.)

It is important to note the role played by these presuppositions, especially the first two. These are presupposed to be true; they cannot possibly be false. Given this, anything in the Bible that disagrees with any of this unquestionable knowledge is, by definition, an error.

eFi Presuppositions

1. Inspiration: the Bible claims to be written by God (2Ti 3:16 – 2Sa 23:2; Lk 1:70; 1Pt 1:19-21.) “Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.” (Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, Part III, Section A.)

2. Inerrancy: the Bible claims to be like its Divine Author, without error (Jh 17:17 – 2Sa 22:31; Ps 12:6; 18:30; 19:7-9; 119:140-144, 151-152; Pro 30:5; Rom 7:12; Jas 3:17.) “’Inerrant’ signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.” (CSBI, Part III, Section C.)

3. Infallibility: the Bible claims to be like its Sovereign Author, reliable (Mt 5:18 – Ps 119:89-91; Isa 40: 8; 46:10-11; 55:10-11; Mt 24:25; Mk 13:31; Jh 10:35; 1Pt 1:25. “’Infallible’ signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe and reliable rule and guide in all matters.” (CSBI, Part III, Section C.)

To be sure, most proponents will affirm these same presuppositions. Yet they do so in a secondary manner. That is, their commitment to these presuppositions is secondary to, and therefore dependently submissive to, the presuppositions previously listed.

They will affirm inspiration, but it is an inspiration that accommodates itself to the errors of mankind. They will affirm inerrancy (most), but as noted previously, this is an incoherent inerrancy, an error-laden inerrancy. They will affirm infallibility, but it is an infallibility merely of divine pronouncement, functioning in the presence of and contrary to rational evidence that would remove the reliability of any other document.

Thus, these are not actually presuppositions after all, merely principles to be re-defined.

In the end, it is their presupposed commitment to the authority of knowledge from men that leads them to the eLi position, not what the Bible says for itself. That is, they have given the position of final authority, the role of final judge of the Bible, to Man, not God.

In contrast, the Bible claims that God is its final judge and authority. The Bible teaches that what it says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author (paraphrase from CSBI, Part III, Section A.)

So, as you read your Bible, here is the vital question to answer: God or Man, who ya gonna believe?!

- Reed DePace

60 Comments

« Older entries