Why People Reject Inerrancy
Over the past several days I have posted on the subject of inerrancy. This is a dear subject to my heart as I love the Word of God. My prayer is Psalm 119:33-40:
Teach me, O LORD, the way of your statutes;
and I will keep it to the end.
Give me understanding, that I am keep your law and observe it with my whole heart.
Lead me in the path of your commandments, for I delight in it.
Incline my heart to your testimonies,
and not to selfish gain!
Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things;
and give me life in your ways.
Confirm to your servant your promise,
that you may be feared.
Turn away the reproach that I dread,
for your rules are good.
Behold, I long for your precepts;
in your righteousness give me life!
The Bible is precious to me because in its pages I find that its precepts are "more to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward" (Psalm 19:10-11 ESV). I firmly believe that the pages of the Bible were written by men who spoke from God "as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21 ESV).
But when it comes to attacks on inerrancy, why do people reject inerrancy? We all know the standard cults reject inerrancy and we understand why: authority. If the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice and that all Christian theology should flow from the Bible then it logically follows that a cult must reject the authority of the Bible. Yet the only way to do is to deny that the Bible is written by the Spirit of God and by fallible men. In this way cults can either introduce false teachings by twisting the Scriptures through their own means and declaring themselves the authority to do so or they introduce new writings (such as the Book of Mormon with the LDS or the New World Translation with the Jehovah's Witnesses or Health & Science by the Christian Science).
I have found from my years that the following are some reasons why people reject inerrancy:
1. Pride - Some guys in my college rejected inerrancy but while they later on appealed to liberal German theologians and human philosophers, they initially rejected inerrancy simply to be different, to be "cool" and to stir up heated debates. They loved mocking true disciples for their reading their Bibles and for their zeal for the Word. They loved mocking evangelical scholars and pastors for teaching inerrancy. The loved being able to say that they rejected inerrancy and watching the looks on disciples faces. It was a pure pride issue.
2. Authority - I have appealed this above with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses but many emergents and others who reject inerrancy do so because the Bible represents a final authority, an absolute truth. We humans pride ourselves on our own minds, our own feelings, our own creativity, our own goals and dreams. We like to feel that we are the gods of our own lives. Yet the Bible represents God's authority. The Bible confronts our sinfulness, exposes our weaknesses and wickedness, shows our ignorance and pride, and allows us to see that Yahweh alone is the one true God and that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).
3. Sin - Perhaps someone is struggling with sexual sins such as homosexuality or pornography or adultery or just pure lust in your heart and you give up fighting against your sins yet you still want to be a Christian and have the assurance of heaven when you die. How can you live in sin and yet still be a disciple (Romans 6:1-23)? It's impossible (1 John 3:6-9)! There is no assurance of salvation for those living in outright rebellion against God and His Law. No promises are given to those living in sin of their salvation. To give yourself false assurance perhaps you want to reject those passages that speak about your sins. You want to believe that God did not say what He said about your sins (Ezekiel 18:4). You want to commit adultery and still be saved so how can you? By rejecting inerrancy of course. If the Bible has mistakes in it, you are free to decide what should be in the Bible and what should not be based on how you feel.
4. Human Wisdom - 1 Corinthians 1:25 says, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (ESV) yet so many listen to the lies of men and come to reject inerrancy based on cliches such as "The Bible was written by men and men make mistakes" or "The Bible was voted on Church Councils and the Councils decided which books would be in the Bible and throughout the others." So many human sayings and philosophies of men come across sounding logical but in the end it is like grasping at the wind. The Bible has withstood 2000 years of human philosophy attacks and will continue to stand against them (should Jesus tarry) for another 2000 years.
5. Textual Criticism - Now to be honest there is both good textual criticism and there is bad. The good would be those who sit down with the Hebrew and Greek texts and seek to know the exact wording of Scripture yet still holding that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. The false textual criticism would be those who in pride seek to tear down the Bible by trying to show that differing texts must somehow prove errors in the Bible. Josh McDowell has pointed out that 95% of manuscripts agree on nearly every verse with little variation and the 5% that differs does not do so with any major Christian doctrine (see McDowell Evidence That Demands A Verdict). There is valid textual criticism and a simple reading from 1 John 5:6-8 in the New American Standard and the New King James shows that Greek manuscripts don't always agree but nonetheless they are accurate on all major theological issues and we can trust that an essentially literal translation is a worthy translation that seeks to give us the very words of God.
Conclusion
Obviously much more could be written on this subject. The rejection of inerrancy opens the door to so many false teachings. Without a divinely inspired Book to teach us God's ways or God's truth, we are left to try to discern truth for ourselves which is impossible in our human minds (Jeremiah 17:9; 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). We can not know right from wrong apart from the law of God (Hebrews 5:14) and through the Law of God we become aware of our sins (Romans 7:7). The Bible is God's mirror given to show our sinful hearts (James 1:22-25).
Some have accused me of worshiping the Bible. I can assure you that I do not. I don't bow down to the Bible and chant to it. But I do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and I believe I have strong biblical justification and historical justification in doing so. I don't mind being a man of the Book. I want God's Word to dwell in me richly and I want to be able to remember and quote hundreds (if not thousands) of verses like Jesus did (Matthew 4:1-11; Colossians 3:16-17). I don't mind if people accuse me of worshiping the Bible so long as the Bible is drawing me closer to Jesus and I am becoming more like Jesus in all that I say or do (1 Corinthians 10:30). That is my heart's cry each time I open my Bible and spend time with Jesus in His Word.
7 comments:
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion This article helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity's theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.
• Baptism: .
Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family. The local congregation had a lay ministry. An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/index.html
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continues baptism and a lay ministry as taught by Jesus’ Apostles. Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and prohibiting non-Christians from witnessing them.
• The Trinity: .
A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?
The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .
Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts.
• Theosis
Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God." . The Gospel of Thomas (which pre-dates the 4 Gospels, but was considered non-canonical by the Nicene Council) quotes the Savior: He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him. (Gospel of Thomas 50, 28-30, Nag Hammadi Library in English, J.M.Robinson, 1st ed 1977; 3rd ed. 1988) The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS agrees with Athanasius and Thomas regarding theosis.
• The Deity of Jesus Christ
Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists (28 percent of Episcopalians) agreed that Jesus was “without sin”, 70 percent of Mormons believe Jesus was sinless. http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html
• The Cross and Christ’s Atonement: .
The Cross became popular as a Christian symbol in the Fifth Century A.D. . Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) believe the proper Christian symbol is Christ’s resurrection , not his crucifixion on the Cross. Many Mormon chapels feature paintings of the resurrected Christ or His Second Coming. Furthermore, members of the church believe the major part of Christ’s atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane as Christ took upon him the sins of all mankind.
• Definition of “Christian”: .
But Mormons don’t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. They believe Christ’s atonement applies to all mankind. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”: All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. They all worship the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and address Him in prayer as prescribed in The Lord’s Prayer.
It’s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be authentic Christians. . Early Christians had certain rituals which defined a Christian http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/207/2070037.htm , which members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue today. . Please refer to: http://NewTestamentTempleRitual.blogspot.com If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.
• The Parallel with the “Rise of Christianity”
Rodney Stark in his book “The Rise of Christianity” found parallels with the rise of Mormonism:
A similar growth rate (40 percent for Christianity, and 43 percent for Mormonism) for both nascent religious movements. Conversions proceeded along social networking lines, primarily. While Christianity retained Jews’ belief in the Old Testament, Mormonism retains Creedal Christians’ belief in both the New and Old Testaments. The Romans martyred the Christian leaders, the mobs in Missouri and Illinois martyred the Mormon leaders. In both cases, they expected the fledgling movements to fail without their leaders.
• The Need for a Restoration of the Christian Church:
The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, just prior to leaving the church he established, said this:
"There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.” (Picturesque America, p. 502.)
Martin Luther had similar thoughts: "Nor can a Christian believer be forced beyond sacred Scriptures,...unless some new and proved revelation should be added; for we are forbidden by divine law to believe except what is proved either through the divine Scriptures or through Manifest revelation."
He also wrote: "I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been not only corrupted by sin, but absolutely destroyed; so that there is now nothing in them but a depraved reason and a will that is the enemy and opponent of God. I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among
those who should have preserved it."
The Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from early Christianity. The Lutheran and Baptist churches have attempted reform, but Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and perhaps Martin Luther) require inspired restoration, so as to re-establish an unbroken line of authority and apostolic succession.
* * *
• Christ-Like Lives:
The 2005 National Study of Youth and Religion published by UNC-Chapel Hill found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
1. Attend Religious Services weekly
2. Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life – extremely important
3. Believes in life after death
4. Does NOT believe in psychics or fortune-tellers
5. Has taught religious education classes
6. Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline
7. Sabbath Observance
8. Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith
9. Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily
10. Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen (very supportive)
11. Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality
LDS Evangelical
1. 71% 55%
2. 52 28
3. 76 62
4. 100 95
5. 42 28
6. 68 22
7. 67 40
8. 72 56
9. 50 19
10. 65 26
11. 84 35
So what do you think the motivation is for the Evangelical preachers to denigrate the Mormon Church? You would think Evangelical preachers would be emulating Mormon practices (a creed to believe, a place to belong, a calling to live out, and a hope to hold onto) which were noted by Methodist Rev. Kenda Creasy Dean of the Princeton Theological Seminary, as causing Mormon teenagers to “top the charts” in Christian characteristics. (see http://MormonTeenagers.blogspot.com) It seems obvious pastors shouldn't be denigrating a church based on First Century Christianity, with high efficacy. The only plausible reason to denigrate Mormons is for Evangelical pastors to protect their flock (and their livelihood).
And what of the Book of Mormon? Is it equal with the 66 books of the Bible?
Billy
Where do we begin to deny that LDS are Christians and even more so evangelical? There are so many differences and the LDS's theology is clearly not orthodox.
For more information see the following great sites:
http://vintage.aomin.org/Mormonism.html
http://www.utlm.org/
As far as the LDS view of the Bible goes, it is clear that they reject inerrancy with the addition of the Book of Mormon. Ironically Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon to be "the most correct book on the face of the earth" but the LDS Church has changed the "most perfect book" over 6,000 times! The LDS concept of revelation is wrong. The LDS concept of authority is wrong. The LDS concept of salvation is wrong. The LDS are simply wrong.
Even my Calvinist brethren will join in with me in declaring that the LDS Church is not only not the "one true Church" but is not even a part of the Church and Mormons need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved from their sins.
Yeah, it would take waaay too long to show all the reasons why Mormons are "Mormons" and not Christians. Good idea to just point out well established sites (or books) that already answer the questions. I am still baffled how Mormon's keep claiming it when there is no proof of their teachings prior to the 19th century (except maybe a couple of condemned heresies that they "claim" to not be heresies but the truth). Oh well.
Anyways, as for your post, I like what you stated. Somewhere in your categories you should have added something that had to deal with the Church's lust to look "scholarly" by the world's standards. Many drop inerrancy after being tought by liberal theologians over several "historical issues" that prove many supposed faults in the scriptures. Does this make sense?
All in all, there still is a bit of a problem for us inerrantists when it comes to inerrancy. We believe the ORIGINAL manuscripts are inerrant, not the copies (despite their 95-97% accuracy as a collective whole)....But we don't have the originals. So how practical is it for us to hold a view when we don't have them?
It is an honest question and one I have a hard time answering. Nevertheless, Dan Wallace, who is a fantastic textual critic (and inerrantist!) believes that inerrancy serves as a "security blanket". Those who believe in inerrancy treat the Bible in the way that the Bible demands to be treated and continue to confront the APPARENT contradictions for solutions, rather than giving up on them like infallibilists. Moreover, inerrancy leads to Church's that are far more orthodox and less influenced upon by secularism than Church's that don't adhere to it.
www.gracegate.org
Would love for you to check it out....thanks!
Well said Jeremiah. For the disciple I think it is safer to work from inerrancy even when we have questions about the text. I have read things before and had to study them out in order to find the meaning (as we all have) but I work from a viewpoint of believing that the Bible is God-breathed and perfect. Again, I challenge anyone who does not hold to inerrancy to point to a lasting missionary movement, a lasting preaching ministry, or a lasting Church that today is changing lives through the gospel. You will not find one. All great revivals, all great missionary movements, all great Churches find their authority, calling, and unction from the Word of God.
Unfortunately many people believe that the Bible says things that it does not say because they assume that the Bible says what people SAY it says. And this erroneous assumption causes them to doubt the scriptures when in fact what they are truly doing is doubting the opinion that the were told. In such cases they have falsely assumed that they know what the Bible says so all they are doing is doubting their own caricature -- which basically amounts to a straw-man rationale for tossing out the Bible.
Nevertheless it's easy to use the Bible to criticize the belief's of others. But what's sad is how many people are willing to give lip service to the authority of the Bible but who will turn-a-blind-eye to the facts stated in the plain text of scripture whenever the Bible threatens to expose an unbiblical tradition of their own. Needless to say that such behavior does not evidence a love of the truth.
The sad fact is that there are plenty of people that will teach an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL when there is not a single verse that would justify teaching that idea. However while most people are willing to have God's word correct others only a small remnant actually seems to welcome it when the truth of God's word proves them or one of their traditions wrong.
Post a Comment