Contradiction, Paradox and Mystery

I ran across this interesting video on YouTube. These guys do a good job of discussing issues close to the heart of THEOparadox. Don't you agree?

DISCLAIMER: with a little further research, I discovered the main speaker here is Alex Locay, and the questioner is Eric Purtic. Both are instructors at the Ravi Zacharias School of Apologetics, which is associated with Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale. The two have produced lots of apologetics videos, some of which are very good. However, given the prevailing anti-Calvinist stance of Calvary Chapel (not to mention Ravi Zacharias' commitment to the free will doctrine), some of the videos should be taken with large grains of salt. Use caution. No apologist is great on every topic, but Locay and Purtic provide well informed arguments on some of the important ones.

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 12

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

3A. Implications

 Working from the nature of the paradoxicality model, we can draw some implications for biblical study by scholars, pastors, and church members alike.35

 1) The paradox model advances clarity in biblical study 

 Acquaintance with paradoxicality, teaching it, and grasping the model is helpful in handling difficult teachings. It is an organizing principle by which to identify threads of truth for clarity in the midst of complexity.36

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

35 There is much that is practical here for the church. Consider the illustration of a rope over a pulley hanging in front of someone stuck half way down a deep well. The person sees two ropes and cannot see that they connect or how they connect to form a single rope. To use the “ropes” to save his life, he must grab both at the same time. If he grabs one to the exclusion of the other, he will plummet to the bottom of the well. To receive the bread of life from Scriptural paradoxes for our benefit, we must believe and live by both threads/ropes of truth, even if our logic tells us that using one to the exclusion of the other is easier.  

36 As theologians, pastors, and church members encounter threads of truth that seem to exist in intractable tension (such as: the full humanity and full deity of Christ, Scripture is the word of man and the word of God, and so forth) having a handle for these theological boiling pots on the stove gives perspective and keeps us from getting burned by confusion. Serving clarity, the paradox model goes hand in hand with the perspicuity of Scripture. Thus, even the most profound teachings of Scripture are bread of life for the church. Both theological formulation and pastoral proclamation can make profitable use of this model.  

PART 13 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 3

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

Moreover, we know that a set of beliefs is a paradox by the following ingredients.    

 1) There are (at least) two claims or beliefs.  

 2) Both are in Scripture; they are clear threads of biblical teaching, clear threads of truth.  

 3) They seem to contradict each other. This means we have difficulty seeing how they fit together in the fabric of Scripture. It means that human reason has trouble accepting one teaching because of the other.5 Intellectual tension exists in a tenacious and profound way.6

 4) Danger: we have the tendency to damage one teaching or the other by our reasoning. Thus, we take a biblical truth and use it to deny another biblical truth! This is a red flag. On the word contradiction, it is a response to those who claim the presence of actual contradiction. Van Til states that when “contradiction” is wrongly attributed to two truths, one is “thrown overboard” to solve the problem logically.7

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

5 There may be other factors that make acceptance of x difficult, but the juxtaposition to the corresponding thread is central as a cloud that hinders seeing x clearly and accepting it wholeheartedly.   

6 Not every difficult set of teachings constitutes a paradox. Difficulties such as Jephthah’s vow in relation to Jesus teaching on vows are not paradoxical because they do not push against each other. Church history and the history of theology reveal a limited number of paradoxes easy to identify. Paradoxicality is not difficulty in arriving at comparable truths, but difficulty in harmonizing truths that are clear (by themselves Christ’s deity and His humanity are quite clear, but reflection on their interconnection takes theologians all over the map). Some example paradoxes are the trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, the Bible is the word of God and the word of men, sovereignty and responsibility, God’s decree and His desire, and moral inability along side of full responsibility.   

7 Defense 69. This is not merely a debate between reformed and non-reformed thinkers because, for one example, Van Til wrestled on the basis of paradox in opposition to some reformed thinkers in his book, Common Grace (Philadelphia: P&RP, 1954). In more ways that one, J. I. Packer compliments and gives detail to Van Til’s approach to common grace and the free offer of the gospel in Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961). Packer’s definition of antinomy (appearance of contradiction, apparent incompatibility) equals Van Til’s use of paradox, though Packer restricts paradox to a figure of speech, 18-19. Van Til uses antinomy and paradox interchangeably, Defense, 67, fn36.


PART 4 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 2

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin by reading part 1.

1A. Theological Paradox  


For Van Til, a paradox is an apparent contradiction or any intellectual tension.1 It relates to the philosophical notion of contradiction.2 The coherence of God and His revelation calls us to avoid contradictory thoughts and practices. Simply put: being God’s image bearers, we are to be like Him. God is logical because He is truth. If there were contradictions in God's knowledge, then some of His knowledge would be false, He would not be the truth, and He would not be God. Accordingly, there is no contradiction in God’s revelation; therefore, man, His image bearer, to be like Him, must avoid contradiction.3

  

Nonetheless, we must come to terms with apparent contradictions, beliefs that seem inconsistent. Importantly, we know that there is no inconsistency between them because God has revealed hem. Paradoxicality should be no surprise. After all, we are creatures and He is the Creator. We have limited knowledge; we cannot penetrate all the interconnections that exist within the truth that God knows. Pointedly, paradox is the “result of our ignorance about interconnections.”4

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

1 Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace (Philadelphia: P&RP, 1954) 9-10. In Defense of the Faith (P&R Publishing: Phillipsburg, 2008, 4th edition, edited by Scott Oliphint), 67-68 he says: “Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical.” Oliphint on Van Til notes that what seems to be contradiction is not ultimately one because “God is exhaustively coherent” (fn38). Oliphant also explains the Van Til uses paradox to refer to “any intellectual point of tension” (fn38).  

2 The idea of contradiction has almost universal recognition.  Outside the history of Western philosophy, some 

people try to make sense of statements like "you are to meditate on one hand clapping." However, this example shows that one of the reasons that contradiction is wrong is that it is meaningless and blocks communication. You cannot make sense of "one hand clapping." Try to clap with only one hand; it becomes "one hand waving." It is ambiguous (you can "clap" one hand against something) but what is meant is "clap your hands together but only use one hand" (trying it I cannot even keep one hand still!). That is contradiction. It breaks down communication; very often, it breaks down honest communication. 

3 Therefore, to fulfill our role on earth receiving God's communication to us in nature and in Christ, we ought to be logical, consistent, and non-contradictory in our thinking. Cf. Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (P&R, 1972): “The rules of logic must be followed in all our attempts at systematic exposition of God’s revelation, whether general or special,” 9. Using logic is an “ought to”; it is an ethical ought. Being logical is being godly. It is God-like. It is good and proper. It is required of us not only academically or intellectually but also morally and spiritually. How else are we going to obey the Lord when He says, "Come now let us reason together"? To place a healthy emphasis on logical and critical thinking is a hurdle all its own. However, once we jump this obstacle, we face other ones such as the problem that human reason may take on a magisterial role rather than a ministerial role. When that happens, the reasoning self forgets (avoids, denies) the reality that he is duty bound under the authority of God’s revelation and he will have difficulty accepting “mysteries that are beyond reason’s ability completely to comprehend” (Scott Oliphint, Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology, [P&R Publishing, 2006; cf. the insightful citation from Owen, 255, fn39] 88-89). In the end, this is a failure to practice the most humble use of logic. 
4 John Frame, “The Problem of Theological Paradox” in Foundations of Christian scholarship: essays in the Van Til Perspective, ed. Gary North (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1979), 321. Frame goes on to explain that “we do not know precisely how they ‘dovetail,’ how they take account of one another. We know that they do dovetail, for we know that God’s plan is wise and exhaustive, and usually we know how they fit together to some degree, but the gaps in our knowledge often demand that we rest content with a paradoxical formulation” (underlining mine). 


PART 3 - Click Here

Tell People Jesus Loves Them

Below is my response to a recent post at the Defending and Contending blog. The author admonishes us not to tell people Jesus loves them. Yes, you read that correctly. It's Calvinism gone bad, with a TULIP that is unfortunately planted in the shallow sand of human logic, arguing backwards from assumptions concerning the mystery of divine election and God's disposition toward the non-elect. (NOTE: upon further reflection, I think the sentiments may have been born more from a distaste for shallow, Gospel-deficient evangelism than an excessive dependence on human logic or a harsh brand of Calvinism. And I share the distaste.) The TULIP grows and shows its vibrant color best when it is cultivated in the life-giving ground of Revelation and Grace. God's disposition toward the reprobate is a topic that needs to be handled with special prudence and care (can you guess which Reformed theologian I am paraphrasing?). The thoughts below are not comprehensive, but they are an attempt to present the other side of the Biblical teaching that is sometimes ignored and must be brought back into the equation if we are to be Scripturally balanced.

Just a few things to consider here. I think we might be in danger of throwing the baby out with the proverbial bath water . . . (and I apologize in advance for this long comment – thanks for your patience).

First, it is true that glibly telling people Jesus loves them is not the same as preaching the Gospel. It is also true that the Law can be a great tool to lead people to Christ. And it is true that God does not love every person in a way that ultimately ends in his or her salvation. But the love of God for all of His creatures is evident in the fact that he bears patiently with the reprobate while meeting their needs Providentially, and in some sense desires their repentance. He certainly commands it (Acts 17:30) – even if He does not effect it.

Is it possible that there is a logical fallacy behind the conclusion that Jesus does not love all people? Why can’t there be a sense in which God loves and hates all sinners? Do we have to make the categories mutually exclusive? Can’t there be a sense in which God loves all people as His creatures, and another sense in which He hates all sinners as rebels against Him and destroyers of His work? I find this is the only way to reconcile all of the Biblical statements about God’s disposition toward sinners.

If God had only hatred for the reprobate, and no real love for them at all, would he not have great pleasure in their destruction? Yet He says He has NO PLEASURE in it, but rather would have pleasure in their repentance.

Ezekiel 18:23 “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?”

Ezekiel 33:11 “Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?”

This expression of hypothetical pleasure on the part of God surely indicates love for those He calls “wicked.” Unmingled hatred would never invite an enemy to repentance and reconciliation. But God loves His enemies, and even blesses them (Mt. 5:44-45).

Consider this: we do not know whether Adam and Eve were ultimately saved. But God certainly loved them by pursuing them, calling to them, clothing them, giving them instructions and promises, granting them children, etc. They may both have been reprobate in the end (we don’t know), but that does not mean God couldn’t rightly claim to have loved them. Do we assume that because God showed love to them they must have been saved?

If God says He “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,” we ought to have no qualms about telling the entire world (all the progeny of Adam and Eve) that God loves them. And to be accurate we must not forget to mention the thrust of the rest of the chapter: the fact that God’s love will not prevent Him from finally condemning all those who do not respond to His love with repentance and trust in Christ. But by all means teach children to sing, “Jesus loves the little children.” Let us not fall into the same trap the disciples did, when they tried to push the children away from the Lord. Jesus didn’t say, “Let the elect children come.” He simply said, “Let the children come to Me.”

Sharing God’s love can be an important part of evangelism, as Paul noted it is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance. (Romans 2:4)

Reformed theologians have historically maintained a distinction between the general love of God and His effectual working of salvation in an individual’s life. God loves all sinners; He loves and justly judges some, while He loves and graciously saves others. But all of them have been sustained and blessed by Him all along the way. He takes pleasure in their repentance. He doesn’t delight in their destruction, though He delights in His justice when they do not repent.

So, I say we should tell the whole world about the love and judgment of God, and especially about the way both were demonstrated in the cross of Christ, to the glory of our great God and Savior. The Gospel isn’t “For God hated most of the people in the world . . .”

I agree that the angle of God opposing the proud is of great use in evangelism. This is a useful observation. But even here we must be careful, for what does His opposition say? It says, “Repent, or perish. Humble yourself, and receive grace!” If there was no love, there would be no such warning. If there was no love, there would be no confrontation. If there was no love at all, there would be no breath, no heartbeat, no patience, no warning, no command to repent, no Providential care.

Why do we share the Gospel in the first place? Because we love others, in obedience to God’s command. Is this love from ourselves only? That can hardly be. It is an expression of His love, even for those who turn away and go on hating Him.

Has the Doctrine of Inerrancy Outlived Its Usefulness? PART 3

Short answer:

Robert Jimenez has posted the third and final portion of his series about Biblical inerrancy. Here are links to his three articles, and my responses to them.
Jimenez 1
Ashton 1
Jimenez 2
Ashton 2
Jimenez 3
Note: While this is primarily a response to Robert Jimenez, it also serves as a response to Roger Olson's astounding claim that "inerrancy doesn't matter."


The final post in Jimenez' series consists of three main elements:
1. An appeal to authority in which several prominent theologians are cited
2. An attempt to disprove inerrancy by pointing out several "clear mistakes in the Bible" 
3. An assertion that the term "inerrancy" is not helpful. 
At the same time, Jimenez insists that he views Scripture as "truthful," "trustworthy" and "inspired."
Before I go any further, I want to note that I have nothing personal against Robert Jimenez, and this is not an ad hominem attack. I have never met him, do not know him personally, and have no real insight into his motivations or his heart. I am responding to what I believe are dangerous and wrongheaded arguments, which he has boldly advanced in a public forum. As far as I can tell, Jimenez is a studious believer who serves God faithfully, and for that I am thankful. I earnestly hope, by God's grace, that my arguments will give non-inerrantists like Jimenez sufficient reason to turn back from their views and embrace a much higher view of Scripture.


Appeal to Authority


Jimenez quotes Evangelical heavyweights Donald Bloesch, Clark Pinnock, Roger Olson and Howard Marshall in support of his thesis. We have little to say in response to such an appeal, other than this: Evangelical faith universally affirms that Scripture is a higher authority than its critics. If Evangelical scholars want to bash inconsistent holes in their own foundation, they can. But not with any backing from the Bible, and certainly not with any shred of consent from those who place their full trust in it. It is ironic that an attack on Biblical inerrancy is made using an appeal to mere human authority (i.e. opinion). I can hear my Mom saying, "If all of your Evangelical theologian friends jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?"


Original Manuscripts


Jimenez takes issue with the inerrantist belief specifying the original manuscripts alone as faultless, saying:
"I think that it takes a huge leap of faith to assume that the Original Autographs were perfect, and it is a pretty remarkable hypothesis considering the fact that the manuscripts we have are extremely reliable and no reason to think they differ from the Original Autographs."
The original manuscripts were the direct result of divine inspiration. How is it unwarranted or difficult to believe that God produced them flawlessly? We are talking about "God," with a capital G, the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. If God Himself inspired the original text, how is it a "leap" to believe He prevented the writers from making factual errors? He did, after all, create the writers in the first place. Is He not omnipotent enough to produce a faultless document through human agents? Not wise enough? Not perfect enough? How, exactly, is God incapable of this? And why should I not believe He produced a flawless result? Jiminez offers no compelling reasons. By framing the discussion in terms of a "leap of faith," he rightly points to the core issue driving the rejection of inerrancy: unbelief. We just doubt it, so it can't be so.
In spite of the considerably studious character he displays, Jimenez seems to have missed the whole point of the doctrine of inerrancy, and all of the major reasons for affirming it. Had he studied more classical and conservative sources (rather than the very confused Dr. Peter Enns CORRECTION: Brother Jimenez has informed me that he has not read Peter Enns' book), he might have discovered why we have every reason to think the available manuscripts are slightly different from the originals. We have textual variants that must be accounted for. Where did they come from? Which variant is more likely to match the original? The goal of textual criticism is to painstakingly work back toward an inerrant original, to discover its actual contents as best we can.

_________________________________________________

SIDE NOTE: Under the mistaken impression that I was attempting to broadly define the term "Textual Criticism," one blogger took exception to the last sentence (see here). What follows is my response to his continued insistence that this was a "made up definition." - even after my clarifications to the contrary.

You’ve made something out of nothing. I offered no definition. I simply stated the goal, the motivation, the reason for consulting/applying/studying textual criticism, from an inerrantist’s point of view, in the hermeneutical process. Consider my statement from this context: it was made in response to Robert Jimenez’ claim that “the manuscripts we have are extremely reliable and no reason to think they differ from the Original Autographs.” I pointed to textual variants as proof that we have “every reason” to believe the current manuscripts differ from the originals. I further noted that we engage in textual criticism (or apply the results of textual criticism, if we must be that precise) in an effort to get back toward the content of the original, as far as that is possible. I also noted that the conviction of inerrancy has a huge bearing on how we handle the application of textual criticism. For example, if we believe in an inerrant original, and we have, say, a synoptic situation where there are 700 charioteers killed in one passage and 7 thousand in the parallel account, we are going to reason that the Holy Spirit inspired the correct number in the originals but a scribal error was introduced at the transmission stage. If we don’t believe in inerrancy, we have an open field to come up with all sorts of fanciful theories, perhaps saying that one author was more pro-Davidic and inflated the numbers on purpose, or that he was anti-Davidic and purposely lowered the count (stranger theories have been made, just look at the absurd JEDP Documentary Hyposthesis). Apart from the conviction of inerrancy, we may use the science of textual criticism (which, again, I have nowhere defined) in ways that seem sensible but treat Scripture as less than genuinely divine in origin (just look at what the German “higher” critics did in the early 20th century, and the effect it had on the mainline churches). Read the FULL context of my words, and you will see that I qualify this later in the paragraph (beyond the short section you quoted in your comment), by saying that inerrancy “is the solid rock on which conservative textual criticism is built, and Biblically faithful exegesis depends on it.” Conservative being the key word. By way of illustration, imagine you overhear a fisherman say, “The reason a guy has a boat is to get where the fish are biting.” You go home, look up 7 definitions of the word “boat” and publish an article in the local newspaper, challenging the fisherman’s “definition.” Only one problem: he wasn’t giving a definition, he was giving a reason. Specifically, a fisherman’s reason. A conservative inerrantist’s engagement in textual criticism most certainly has the goal of discovering the content of the inerrant original. To quibble with the word “inerrant” in this stated goal is pointless and only begs the question. It IS his driving presupposition, whether or not he ever states it. I am contrasting this with the goal of the “higher” critic who doesn’t believe in inerrancy. He has a different goal. Going back to the boat illustration, he might want a boat so he can kill the fish, go diving, enjoy a pleasure cruise, or perhaps ram into the fisherman’s boat just for fun. In any case, the “higher” critic’s rejection of inerrancy produces a completely different hermeneutical result. This was my only point, and I must say again very clearly that I DID NOT OFFER ANY KIND OF DEFINITION. Context, context, context.

In case you're wondering, he still wasn't convinced and continued to insist that I was somehow incorrect. I guess we'll have to let the historians decide.

_________________________________________________

How does one launch a public challenge against inerrancy without understanding these basic facts about hermeneutics and Biblical transmission? If we assume the originals contained errors, we can easily lose our way amid the sea of potential reconciliations, and we are free to make the text say whatever we want through theories of emendation and cultural accommodation. Apart from inerrancy, we have no True North. Thus we unwittingly follow in the footsteps of liberal scholars who have built their house of cards on the sand swept foundation of assumed Biblical errors. The conviction of inerrancy is the solid rock on which conservative textual criticism is built, and Biblically faithful exegesis depends on it.
There seems to be a lack of knowledge among some of today's Evangelicals concerning basic textual issues and simple ways to resolve run-of-the-mill Bible difficulties. Some are apparently ignorant of the fact that truckloads of ink has been spilled in addressing these questions. For example, the supposed "discrepancies" and "contradictions" in the Gospels and other parallel accounts (e.g. Samuel-Kings/Chronicles) have been well documented and effectively answered by a whole host of scholars and commentators. The universal conclusion of Bible-believing scholarship has been that these synoptic discrepancies typically boil down to misinterpretation by the reader, copyist's errors or emendations, and historical misunderstandings. But all of this is ignored so that the precious doctrine of Biblical errancy can be maintained.
The non-inerrantist makes the mistake of uncritically accepting the arguments of skepticism, rather than tracing and identifying the root of the apparent contradictions, and explaining the texts in a way that backs up the claim that the Bible is a divinely inspired and entirely reliable document. Evangelical errantists want to enjoy the fruit of a truthful and reliable Bible, but they don't want to lay the necessary foundation. Their belief in the "truthfulness" and "reliability" of the Bible can ultimately be no stronger than their conviction regarding the inerrancy of the originals.

Mistakes, yes . . . but Whose Mistakes?


The examples presented by Jimenez as "clear mistakes" only prove that he has not invested sufficient time in examining the factuality of the Scriptures. I will show that these are not actual errors in the process of inspiration (which would make them divine mistakes), but errors in the process of transmission (which makes them purely human mistakes). This is the point of the doctrine of inerrancy: although minor human mistakes were made in the transmission of the text, no mistakes were ever made in the process of inspiration. Let's study the four examples of Biblical "mistakes" cited by Jimenez.


Example #1
I Corinthians 10:8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did,and twenty-three thousand fell in one day.
Numbers 25:9 Those who died by the plague were 24,000.
This could be a simple scribal error. He wrote a 4 rather than a 3. No big deal. But there is another possibility: note that Paul says 23,000 fell in one day. Numbers says 24,000 died from the plague, without any reference to the time frame. It is easy enough to believe that 23,000 died the first day, and 1,000 died later from the lingering effects. Yet another possibility: perhaps 23,000 Israelites died from the plague, while an additional 1,000 Moabites also died, leading to the 24,000 figure in Numbers. Whatever the case, it is expected that these numbers are only estimates with an acknowledged imprecision. Inerrantists accept acknowledged imprecision as a standard and acceptable mode of communication that would be understood as such by the original readers - and should also be understood by us.


Example #2
I Samuel 31:4 Then Saul said to his armor bearer, "Draw your sword and pierce me through with it, otherwise these uncircumcised will come and pierce me through and make sport of me." But his armor bearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. So Saultook his sword and fell on it.
II Samuel 1:10 "So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knewthat he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown which was on his head and the braceletwhich was on his arm, and I have brought them hereto my lord."
The Biblical author tells the real story in Samuel. The account in Chronicles is of an Amalekite re-telling the story from his own perspective. Note the quotation marks. The resolution is obvious: the Amalekite is lying. He thinks he will gain favor with David by claiming to be Saul's killer. Ironically, this lie cost him his life. It is also ironic that his story is now used as an attack on Biblical inerrancy as well. This proves that Satan can use the same lie for different purposes.
Inerrancy affirms that the Amalekite actually said those words, and that his words were false. Errancy would dictate that the Biblical writer may have remembered the words incorrectly. That the Holy Spirit may have inspired him to write something not factually true. How can we trust a Bible that is potentially full of significant, message-altering human errors? This is where the rubber meets the road.


Example #3
II Samuel 10:18 But the Arameans fled before Israel, and David killed700 charioteers of the Arameans and 40,000 horsemen and struck down Shobach the commander of their army, and he died there.
I Chronicles 19:18 The Arameans fled before Israel, and David killed of the Arameans 7,000 charioteers and 40,000 footsoldiers, and put to death Shophach the commanderof the army.
A very easily explained scribal error. He simply forgot to write a zero. Errantists would have us believe God sanctioned this error by allowing it in the original, rather than that a human being made the error later. What, exactly, do they gain with this move? It seems calculated to discredit the inspiration and authority of Scripture.


Example #4
In Jimenez' own words: "We have different accounts of what was said in the Gospels such as Luke reporting that they cried out “Glory in the highest”, while the other Gospels says they cried out “Hosanna in the highest”.  All four Gospels report differently the wording of the inscription above the cross."
This is about as weak as an argument can get. I could recommend about 20 different books capable of correcting the erroneous thinking underlying this claim, but this post is already too long. Notice, again, that Jimenez is standing in lock step with skeptics rather than countering their fallacious claims. Are Apologetics courses no longer taught at Bible Colleges?
Using these 4 examples, Jimenez has committed the great mistake of arriving at a foregone conclusion based on scant evidence. He has made a worse mistake by trusting the claims of errant men over the claims the Bible inerrantly makes about itself.


A Biblical Case for Inerrancy


Jimenez asks:
"What does the bible say about itself?  Does it claim to be inerrant as they would have us believe?  Or does it claim something else about itself?  Where is the proof text that makes these claims?"
Now we're getting somewhere. These are the right questions. Unfortunately, the wrong answers are given. Strikingly, Jimenez offers not a single Scripture verse, while quoting his favorite scholars at length. We will attempt to correct that situation now by answering his questions from Scripture. I'd challenge Jimenez to offer up a verse that affirms "something else" than inerrancy. If he found one, I would ask him how he knows it was not a mere cultural accommodation by the writer.
Let's look at two tiny verses that completely demolish the arguments presented by advocates of Evangelical errancy. These are the pills that can cure us from mistaken views of Scripture.


Psalm 12:6 And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times


The point is made emphatic by the use of two Hebrew words for refining and purifying metal, Tsaraph and Zaqaq. The obvious meaning is that God's Word is "flawless" and does not contain any kind of impurity or falsehood. God's Word is here compared to highly purified silver (7 times!), refined in a clay furnace. The clay does not contaminate the silver, as some errantists would suggest in their "incarnational" model. Their view of inspiration is like rolling molten silver in the dirt. But according to this verse the clay is merely the container in which the silver is smelted. The word picture removes the possibility of human error contaminating the Word.
A Biblical view demands that inspiration took place under the direct involvement and sanction of the Holy Spirit, to such an extent that the Biblical text can be called the Holy Spirit's own Word. See Hebrews 3:7 and 10:15. While the writers themselves were errant, the Words given by the Spirit could not have been. Any lesser view amounts to a denial of "verbal, plenary inspiration."


II Peter 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.


The Biblical writers were men, yes - and fallen men - but they were men moved by the Holy Spirit and they spoke from God. If words contain error, they are not "from God." Denial of inerrancy is ultimately a denial of God's perfection, or a denial of inspiration. They were moved by the Holy Spirit, not by cultural accommodation. They spoke from God, not from culture.
The requested proof texts have been given. Now, compare Scripture's high view of itself with Jimenez' baffling, backhanded affirmation of a fallible inerrancy:


"I believe in inerrancy with the understanding that “The Bible contains a fallible element in the sense that it reflects the cultural limitations of the writers.  But it is not mistaken in what it purports to teach, namely, god’s will and purpose for the world” Bloesh (sic) EET, p69"


So, the Bible is inerrant only if it is fallible? That's unintelligible, like saying a towel is only dry if there is moisture in it. If the Bible ONLY touched on "God's will and purpose for the world," this would be enough. But as soon as the Bible speaks of historical events, scientific realities, or any other spheres of knowledge, its reliability as a divinely inspired text depends on its correctness in these matters as well. I daresay the real cultural limitation at work here is a postmodern refusal to accept Scripture as the only
flawless
infallible
inerrant
factual
truthful
entirely reliable
absolutely trustworthy
totally and unequivocally faultless 
Word of God. Period.


A Final Illustration


Picture a river. Its source is a mountain spring, perfectly clear and pure. Further downstream, flowing through a city, it gets muddied a bit and slightly polluted - but it is still 99.99 percent pure and completely drinkable. The Bible as we presently know it is not perfectly pure, but pure enough, and with proper effort we can strain out most of the contaminants. Those who reject inerrancy make the untenable claim that the pollution entered the Bible at its very source, in the very process of inspiration. Worse, by making this claim they actually join with skeptics and cast more pollution into the stream rather than straining out the little bit that is truly there. Thus, for them there is no pure source to work back toward, and there is no underlying perfection. This is a grave error, and the consequence - intended or not - is that both the river and it's source are viewed as less trustworthy, less healthy, less authoritative than they truly are. These are life and death issues, for we are called to take this water to the thirsty and save their lives by sharing it with them. These are not trifles.

Complementarian Issues & Biblical Integrity - A Rallying Cry

I'm no expert on complementarianism and egalitarianism, but I'm having a little fun commenting over here:

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2010/09/13/a-question-for-the-gospel-coalition/comment-page-4/#comment-113815

The argument of Ephesians 5 is simply unassailable. It can't be disposed of without dismantling the fundamentals of gender, the Gospel, or both. The best attempt so far has been to pit Ephesians 5:21 (mutual submission of all Christians) against 5:22-33 (submission of wives to husbands). As all THEOparadox readers know, Scripture vs. Scripture is always an invalid argument. The Bible interprets and balances itself, but it never invalidates its own testimony.

What has become of the Evangelical view of Scripture, when such thoughts are entertained? Over and over we see attempts to turn the Bible against itself. Whether it's the false dichotomy of Old Testament vs. New Testament, the imagined discrepancy between Jesus' message and the Gospel of Paul, or notions of "contradiction" in the themes and accounts of the four Gospels, there is no end to the ingenuity of unbelief. But what is most alarming is that Evangelicals are standing side by side with liberal scholars in launching the attacks.

In response to all of this, Bible-believing, Gospel-preaching Christians will continue to affirm that the Word of God is entirely true. Inerrancy is defensible. Scripture stands forever.

We will look to the Word of God as the authoritative and error-free guide in all matters of life and godliness. We will always stand firm with Luther and Calvin, shouting "Sola Scriptura!" And we will do so lovingly, yet without compromise.

You Already Believe in Square Circles

Inevitably, the classic geometrical argument against Biblical and theological paradox comes up in conversation.

The incredulous questioner scrunches up his face and says, "Are you trying to get me to believe in square circles?"

Sometimes the tone of the question imparts a sense of rationalistic condescension. I've even seen the "square circle" invoked as the penultimate refutation of any and all paradoxical thinking. It's a philosophical, "So there!"

In spite of its perceived force and intended effect, the argument is completely bogus. We will see why in a moment. In the process, we shall demonstrate that it serves as an effective illustration of the very concept it tries to destroy. In other words, the "square circle" completely backfires as an attempt to dismantle the arguments validating theological paradox. A simple lesson in geometry turns it on its head. I answer it this way:

"Why yes, I am saying there are square circles. You already believe in them, and Geometry proves they exist." (So there!)

Squares and circles are, by definition, 2-dimensional objects. As such, they cannot exist in 1 dimension, but can exist in 2 and 3 dimensions. It is true that within a two dimensional field a shape cannot possibly be both square and circle at the same time, because squares and circles are (by any logic) mutually exclusive. However, on a three dimensional field things change radically. We can have square triangles (pyramids), circular triangles (cones), and - YES - square circles (cylinders)! View any of these objects from certain angles, and some of their shape characteristics disappear. From some angles, a cylinder with equal height and width looks just like a square. From other angles, the same cylinder appears to be a perfect circle. This doesn't make the cylinder self-contradictory - though it may appear that way when viewed two-dimensionally.

When we translate dual-shaped 3-dimensional objects onto two dimensional fields, we are forced to eliminate some of the dimensionality and thereby reduce the object to one of three possible shape types. Let's illustrate using the cylinder:

1. We can eliminate the axis that reveals circularity, and reduce it to a mere square.

2. We can eliminate the axis that reveals squareness, and reduce it to a mere circle.

3. We can retain aspects of all three axes, and reduce it to a shape which is properly neither a square nor a circle, but contains aspects of both.

Let's say divine sovereignty and human responsibility are circle and square, respectively. Some portions of Scripture only reveal God's sovereignty (perfect circles). Other portions of Scripture only reveal human responsibility (perfect squares). And some portions of Scripture mention both divine sovereignty and human responsibility in varying degrees (odd shapes made of squared angles and curves). Because we cannot see all three dimensions at once, God shows us the same issue from various angles. In our minds, they sometimes appear to contradict, but this is only a result of our limited vantage point.

The "square circle" argument against theological paradox overlooks the fact that one additional dimension makes the seemingly impossible possible. That extra dimension makes the apparently contradictory totally tenable. We must come to grips with the fact that God's logic - God's Truth, God's thinking, God's knowledge - exists on a higher plane than ours. He has infinite dimensions. So it is really amazing that we do not find more paradoxes in the eternal realities He has revealed. He has finely tuned His Word to be rationally intelligible to our wee little human brains - yet its revelations point to realities that are beyond our grasp and super-rationally True.

Compatibilism proposes that God plainly declares His absolute sovereignty because He wants us to hold it firmly, and He sometimes reveals human freedom without qualification because He wants us to hold it firmly. He reveals both together because He wants us to recognize that they interact in ways not fully discernible from our human point of view. Compatibilism says when we see squares and circles in the same place we can rationally believe there is a cylinder there (a 3D square circle).

In the Bible, God is not describing 2-dimensional concepts to 3-dimensional creatures. He is describing multi-dimensional concepts to comparatively 2-dimensional creatures living in a comparatively 2-dimensional world, with nothing but 2-dimensional logic to work with - and broken brains to boot. Our attempts to grasp His self-revelation ought to melt us down to the most humble confession: "I am insignificant! God is GREAT! I am a blockhead! God is WISE! I am limited! God is INFINITE! I am of the dust! God is ETERNAL!"

So, the next time someone asks you about square circles, just hand him the nearest cylindrical object and walk away without saying a word.

Has the Doctrine of Inerrancy Outlived Its Usefulness? PART 2

In a recent post, I offered a response to the first installment in Robert Jimenez's series on the doctrine of inerrancy. Jimenez has now posted part 2 of the series.

This installment simply attempts to define the doctrine, and Jimenez has defined it well. To accomplish this, he cites the following quotations:

"If God cannot err, and the original text was breathed out by God, then it follows that the original text of the Bible is without error." ~Norman Geisler

"Inspiration is the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit, who through the different personalities and literary styles of the chosen human authors invested the very words of the original books of Holy Scripture, alone and in their entirety, as the very Word of God without error in all that they teach or imply (including history and science), and the Bible is thereby the infallible rule and final authority for faith and practice of all believers." ~Norman Geisler

“There is one human characteristic the Bible does not have: errors.” ~Norman Geisler

“inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” ~Wayne Grudem

I commented as follows:

From all I’ve seen, I think you offer a good survey of the inerrantist position here. More could be said, or course, about the qualifications regarding genre, authorial intent, phenomenological language, acknowledged imprecision, etc. but you have correctly stated the core concept in my opinion. It’s always helpful to define terms.

Another commenter gave a lengthy treatise describing his rejection of the doctrine. In it, he stated the following:

I think we have to determine the difference between the words fact and truth. I would say Scripture is fully true, but might not be error-free in its fact presentations.

The greatest example, of which even inerrantists (is that a word) would agree, is the idea that parables are not fact. They teach truth, no doubt. But they are not factual stories. It is a fact that Jesus told parables. But the parables, in themselves, are not fact. But they are truth.

And I think this is where modern Christians get mixed up. So we must note such a difference when we read in 2 Samuel 7:16 the report of Nathan’s prophecy to David – And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever. And then read what 1 Chronicles 17:14 reports – but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.

From a factual standpoint, one or both could be wrong. But the truth is communicated in both accounts . . .

This reasoning is absurd. First, regarding the parables, inerrancy is not the least bit threatened by an acknowledgement that parables are fictional stories. Inerrancy recognizes the use of literary genres within the Bible, and in fact demands that we interpret them accordingly. It calls us to interpret parables as parables and doesn't demand more from the text than Jesus Himself meant to put into it.


The commenter goes on to cross hermeneutical lines and apply parable logic to historical narratives. But the genre-specific rules of interpretation cannot be transferred in this way. We have to treat historical narrative as historical narrative. Dealing with parallel accounts of a historical event can be challenging, but not so challenging that we have to pretend the actual history is false or irrelevant. In the two texts, God Himself is quoted as speaking "for real," at a specific time and place in history, to a specific person, about specific events, through the prophet Nathan (who was a real historical person). It's not a parable, and it can't be treated like a parable. The two accounts may appear to contradict, but neither account can be "wrong" in any way. It is likely that Nathan the prophet uttered both statements, but each writer, guided by the Holy Spirit, included the particular statement that was most suitable to his purpose (this is a common phenomenon in Scripture - and such omissions are not errors). It is certain that the apparent contradiction between the two accounts was intentionally placed there by the Holy Spirit - the Breather of Scripture - in order to get our attention. In a very real sense, which the Holy Spirit surely wants us to recognize, the throne of Solomon is a continuation of the throne of David. The house and kingdom of David are ultimately the house an d kingdom of God, through which He will send His own Son. Problem solved, inerrancy held intact. This is a classic example of a textual paradox, which is neither contradictory nor erroneous.


Not only does the commenter's approach dismantle precious Biblical Truth and erode the authority of Scripture by its erroneous assertions, it also misses the beautiful and edifying POINT of the texts it butchers. May God keep us from fallaciously rationalizing away inerrancy in this manner. We can recognize that there are Bible difficulties without conceding that there are Bible errors. Instead of affirming errors, we should seek explanations that are consistent with the character of the Book.

Jimenez's next post in the series will attempt to trace the historical origins of the doctrine of inerrancy. While I do not expect to agree with his ultimate conclusions, and I will probably argue against them vigorously, I hope to enjoy a good education along the way.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Sola Scriptura!
Sola Gratia!