The Inerrancy Of The Bible
This morning, I read a blog entry which discussed false preachers. I won't go into my thoughts on that subject except to say that in my opinion, a false prophet is a false prophet regardless of whether he is misleading intentionally or just mistaken.
I believe Satan is behind both the intentional and the unintentional. Of course, I believe there is a real, living Devil, so that will brand me with that dreaded designation, "Fundamentalist", a word that has lately begun to take on negative connotations for some reason. I believe there is a real, physical Hell, too, but that's a post for another day.
But I digress. One statement caught my eye in ER's treatise, and that is this:
"Whether Peter wrote it or not it's an authentic apostolic view."
This started me thinking. Why would someone, anyone, suspect Peter didn't write the second epistle of Peter? Where is the source or reason for the doubt? Is there any evidence anywhere to suggest Peter didn't pen the letter that bears his name? If there is a statement from Peter himself somewhere that can be verified as certifiably authentic that states he didn't write it, where is it? I've never seen it, and I don't have any reason to question the authorship of 2 Peter. What would be the point? Is this merely one more attempt to cast doubt on the inerrancy of the Bible in general?
I asked these questions over at the other blog, and in return, I received a lengthy explanation which encompassed the scholarly opinions of several so-called scholars who referenced several "scholarly" studies and books to explain that Peter couldn't possibly have written Second Peter because it doesn't seem to match Peter's particular style of writing. The explanation offered is circumstantial at best and heretical at worst.
Why is it that some people blindly accept the theories and opinions of so-called experts about what God says is true, but feel they need to do volumes of research into books and studies by mortal men before they will accept that God is the final arbiter of His own truth? Could it be they simply can't believe that a poor fisherman could possibly be educated and intelligent enough to write such a powerful and insightful missive? Is it possible they are forgetting that God can do all things, including making an uneducated man articulate far beyond his potential?
Do you sense the same dichotomy here as I?
I have no doubt that the author of the aforementioned blog post believes himself a Christian. I have had my doubts in the past, but I have reached the conclusion that the only criteria to determine Christianity is "Do you reject or confirm the Deity of Christ"?
There has been, for some time now, an ongoing argument between me and some others on whether the Bible should be taken literally or merely seriously. Obviously, the Bible should be taken seriously, but should it be taken literally?
Certainly there are fables, known as parables, and object lessons present in the Bible that shouldn't necessarily be taken literally, but for the most part, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God.
I believe ER and many others tend to over think God and theology. By that I mean they tend to over-analyze the Bible and give too much credence to fallible Biblical "Scholars".
There are many who would say that I am too simplistic in my faith. I have been sneeringly accused of believing too much in that old adage, "God says it, I believe it, that settles it." So, let me clarify my thoughts on that point:
If God says it, I believe it. Is that clear?
Now, I suppose readers will expect me to explain why I am so adamant in my beliefs. OK. I'll explain it, thus:
Faith has been defined as "The evidence of things unseen." But that can be true of many things besides faith. For instance, I can't see air, but I know it exists. I can't see gravity, but I know it keeps my feet on the ground. When my feet are not on the ground, I know I will eventually end up on the ground, due to gravity.
I have faith in God. I believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-everything else. I believe God has the power to insure that everything He says will be included in the Bible, and that anything that He doesn't want us to know will not be included there. I believe He has the power to make sure His Word remains unchanged.
I believe that in addition to having faith in things unseen, we have to have faith that God says what He means and means what He says. I don't need a battalion of Biblical scholars to understand the truth.
So, in conclusion, I say, what difference does it make whether Peter wrote the 2nd epistle of Peter or not? It is not an essential tenet of the faith. If we die believing someone else besides Peter wrote the book, will we go to Hell? Of course not.
But think on this:
If any part of God's word can be proven to be in error, than we can have no faith in the remainder.
I fail to understand how people far more intelligent than me can't seem to grasp this simple concept. Perhaps I am just too simplistic, as they say, but if God is fallible, then who is infallible? When we start to question the truth of God and His word, we place ourselves in a dangerous position.
Remember that devil, Satan, whom I believe is real, is the author of lies and deceit, as well as confusion. If he can sow confusion through lies and deceit, and can convince us that merely some of what God says is not true, then he has discredited God.
Once God is discredited, Satan has successfully led us astray from God, and from there he can manipulate us into stretching the boundaries of what we call truth, up to and including the authoring of books that question the basic tenets of Christianity, among other things.
God's mission is to save us from everlasting separation from Him. Satan's mission is to eternally separate us from God.
Choose wisely whom you will serve. Your eternity depends on that choice.
About Me
- Mark
- I don't borrow, cut and paste, or otherwise echo other Conservative blogs and talk show hosts. I sometimes refer to other opinion pieces, but the opinions presented herein are my own. Just because some talk show hosts or bloggers sometimes say the same things I do, any apparent similarities between myself and other commentators is purely coincidental.
14 comments:
I'm with Abouna, Mark. But I also think you hit on something without realizing it....
You said, "what difference does it make whether Peter wrote the 2nd epistle of Peter or not." Agreed, but let me take that statement in a different direction. Take the time to compare the ENTIRETY of Jude to the second chapter of 2 Peter. Could not these two pieces of scripture have been written by the same hand?
I asked and then answered this very question at ER's place: "...they were!!!! For all scripture is given by inspiration of God! The Holy Spirit! Who, according to Jesus, is sent to guide all believers into ALL TRUTH! Hallelujah!" And Amen!
It doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things WHO wrote 2 Peter, because, as ER himself admits: "it's [still] an authentic apostolic view." A hundred years ago Adolf Schlatter wrote a very good book on this subject entitled: The Theology of the Apostles, and you can get it cheap-- REAL cheap --at Amazon.
As to the "so-called" scholars of today, how can they possibly say 2 Peter was not authentic to Peter's penmanship style when they only have 1 Peter to compare it too? One verse springs immediately to mind when I think of modern "scholars"...
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..." --Romans 1:22
Now, you're never gonna get ER to believe the Bible is inerrant... only God can do that, and may. But it will be in HIS time, no matter how frustrating ER is in the meantime.
ER [and Dan, for that matter] have some pretty kooky beliefs... to MY mind. I know what I believe and why I believe it, as do you and Abouna, but so does ER. Since truth simply CANNOT contradict itself, it stands to reason-- and God does like to reason with His children. Just ask Isaiah! --that one of our two camps is precariously pitched on shifting sands. But judging strictly by what ER wrote, I don't get the impression he doubted the authorship of 2 Peter... but then, admittedly, I didn't wade through all the comments.... I hate coming into a discussion late.
Still. I am in agreement with you this far: there ARE false teachers and prophets out there... oodles and gobs of them, on many television shows, and in far too many pulpits. Everything I see in the world today proves to me that the Bible is right... and Literal. We ARE in the last days, and EVERYTHING happening around us appears to be setting the stage for end-time prophecy to be fulfilled.
What a glorious, and dangerous time to be alive!
I'm fairly literal in my beliefs regarding Scripture. When compared to scientific explanations regarding the origin of all things, I like to tell the sophisticate that my God is so powerful that He created a universe that LOOKS like it's several trillion years old, just to make it fun. That really blows their minds. Of course they judge the miraculous only in terms of the laws of physics and such, without realizing that God created the physical universe to adhere to certain physical laws but does not adhere to them Himself. He exists outside of it all.
Regarding how we are taught to live as Christians, the debate seems to center around just a few verses regarding sexuality. Almost everywhere else, there is some level of agreement as regards how a Christian lives. (I say "almost", but don't care to get into listing anything here.) In any case, it seems to me that those few verses have spawned a desire to diminish the authority of Scripture. How far back this desire goes I don't know. Perhaps hundreds of years. But in the last 75 years it has taken on new life and the impact on culture is severe.
To this I agree with the Satanic influence. It really DOESN'T matter whether the false teacher is intentionally so or not. All that matters is that a gap is created between truth and falsehood that is made deeper by the resistance of the false believer to consider a more traditional viewpoint. One blogger we all know has insisted on his methods of determining his beliefs and though he agrees that he could be wrong, he sticks to his guns. Reasoning fails to persuade. He is firm in his misbelief and only God knows how it puts him at risk.
But I fear more for those who are influenced by such people. It further dilutes the body of Christ and fades the distinctions between His people and everyone else until I fear there will be no difference. Then the end times will come because the church will have fallen by attrition and default.
As for 2Peter, I have yet to delve into the voluminous works regarding this letter. At this point I'm unconcerned with the actual author. I believe it's possible it might not have been written by Peter specifically. Things WERE done differently 2000 years ago. It's a small thing overall and it wouldn't diminish anything for me to find out that it wasn't Peter who wrote it.
What a wonderful study upon which to embark.
Marshall said: "How far back this desire goes [the desire for physical and sensual gratification] I don't know. Perhaps hundreds of years."
That's a safe bet Marshall, but just as safe would be "Thousands" of years, almost from the very beginning. It is very hard to deny the flesh its mores, when this flesh is the only vehicle we have ever used to experience the world in which we live. Not until God gives us glorified bodies will we understand differently. Our physical drives themselves are not bad else God would have denied ALL sexual [to be specific] contact... or better yet, would have made us all without the capacity for sex.
Marshall also said: "He is firm in his mis-belief and only God knows how it puts him at risk"
I thinks it's also a safe bet to say we DO have a very good idea of how such mis-belief puts him in danger. At the very least he looses his reward [assuming he IS saved] and stands ashamed before all of heaven that he has no crown to lay at our Lord's feet. At the very worst, he is not saved at all. And we all know what prospects await such a one.
On a side note: I find it curious that one could, at one point and despite being saved, stand ashamed because one will have nothing to lay at our Savior's feet, and yet a thousand years [minimum] later, all our tears will be washed away. In both instances we will all be free of these finite earthly bodies.
As to the loss of tears and emotional pain, I am not in the camp of those who believe God will cause us to forget the past. Personally, I see this as a realization of God's great love and sense of righteous justice. Will we wish that loved ones had accept Christ as savior? Certainly! Better heaven with no crown, than hell with no life to speak of. But at the same time, free from our earthly sense of justice, we will rejoice that our God is righteous and holy and loving... and yes, Justice personified. There will be no need to cry, or feel shame, or loneliness... because we never WILL be alone again.
There's a very interesting and surprising book about the nature of Heaven and the nature of our lives there, by Randy Alcorn called simply enough: Heaven. All his assertions are based on what the Bible says about heaven. And it's not at all what most preachers describe. Most Christians have no idea WHAT heaven will be like. Neither does Randy Alcorn, for that matter, but I can't find anything wrong with his conclusions based on what the bible has to say about heaven. One commentor had this to say:
"Many Christian pastors and teachers have done a great disservice by portraying Heaven as a boring place. Although not intentional, the effect these teachings have had is highly demotivating to many.
"A typical view of many is similar to the fictional Huckleberry Finn. When Miss Watson told Huck about 'the good place', she depicted it as a place where one would listen to harp music forever. Huck asked her if Tom Sawyer would be there and she indicated he would not. Huck said that he was glad about that as he wanted to be with Tom.
"In contrast to that, Alcorn uses numerous Scriptural references to make his case that Heaven is in fact an adventure that just keeps getting better. "
Check it out if you're so inclined.
The question has come up, what if you're sincere in your belief that is wrong? Would it cost you if you tried to be a good Christian and you accepted Christ as your Savior? Can a wrongly held belief be forgiven by one's acceptance, just as any other "sin" can be? Surely there are some notions so grievously counter to the faith that only a deliberate deceiver would hold to it, but then, we can't account for someone's mental state much more than we can their heart. This is what I mean when I said that only God knows how it puts him at risk. For example, do we know for sure what is in Spong's heart when he says the crap he says? Is he really trying to further the faith, or is he trying to make it seem nicer to himself? If the latter, I suspect he's got trouble waitin'. If the former, what then? He's trying in his own stupid way to keep the faith.
Now, to me, Spong is one of those who has so drastically strayed, that I don't see why he pretends to be a Christian believer. He definitely has made God into his own image as far as we can tell. But that's my point: as far as WE can tell. It's always up to the final Judge to make the call. All we can do is evangelize as we believe we should and hope that others hear and come to Christ, and that Christians learn better about being Christians.
I will say, however, that as Mark said, I believe that Satan has a hand in it whether the false teacher is purposefully false or mistakenly false. But how mistaken must one be to lose his salvation? Take those liberal Christians with whom we routinely debate. If you, Mark and I agree that they are way off base, are they off-base enough to anger the Lord? Ultimately we can only pray that we can find the words, but failing that, that they aren't on a track that will not get them where they hope to go.
"how mistaken must one be to lose his salvation?"
A pointless question since it is IMPOSSIBLE to "lose" salvation. A Christian has done nothing to earn it and cannot therefore be lost. One either is, or is not saved. Some who believe they are have been deceived by Satan himself. I'd go into why I'm a OSAS believer, but I'm at work and don't have the time to go into it right now... but I'll get back to you on this.
Okay... As this post deals with the Inerrancy of God's word, what I have to touch on here is by no means unrelated.
"Once Saved, Always Saved" or OSAS is a doctrine that, logically, is unassailable; though many do try to tear down this wall. But here is where they fail in their consideration:
The nature of God, and a little something I call "the Axioms of Translation"
As to the nature of God, He is pure, holy, without blemish or stain of corruption. In short it is impossible for God to commit sin. So, despite His omnipotence there is something God cannot do, which is: He cannot tell a lie.
Which brings me to the Axioms of Translation, and they are as follows:
1-- God cannot lie
2-- The truth of one statement cannot negate the truth of another statement
3-- If the truths of two or more verses appear to be contradictory, the verses must be viewed as possessing dissimilar contexts
What this means is: As God cannot lie, if two seemingly similar verses appear to contradict, the context, or underlying meaning of one must differ from the other.
Based on these principles alone, OSAS is extremely sound doctrine. If you are genuinely saved you cannot ever lose that great gift of eternal life.
I won't burden Mark's comments with such an extensive defense of my position on this. If you want to understand MY reasoning, you can check out my posts on these very subjects at my place. I recommend you read them in the order I've listed them below:
The Nature and Limits of God... and why this is important
Isaiah 1:18 and the Introduction of Logic
I don't post these article here because they are quite lengthy, and as I stated above, I don't want to clutter Mark's comments with my own blog posts.
----
..::For the record: The above links will be dead shortly, perhaps a month from now, as I am in the process of converting all of these old post to my new digs at "Milk & Honey" which is in its infancy::..
"Milk and Honey"?? What about "Pearls and Lodestones"??? I can't keep up, muh man!
I don't think I've made myself clear in my question. I'm not disagreeing with you concerning the nature of God in any way. My point concerns specifically man's opinion of his own understanding. In other words, can one be so committed to Christ in one's own mind, but be so far off in understanding Christian truth as it is explained in Scripture as to cut one's self off from God's salvation? If we consciously deny God, we've got problems. This is plain. But what if we sincerely believe in something contrary to His teachings? I putting forth the possibility that one is sincere in his belief of his mis-interpretation of Scripture. Dan has asked this question and I tend to believe one can still be at risk if a particular belief it too far off, though the believer claims Christ to be Lord. Am I being clear here?
Yes, you're being clear. But better you should ask "What is the Gospel?" For that is all that matters in terms of Salvation. If the Gospel is uncorrupted in the heart of the believer, other unnecessary points of doctrine (as in 'they don't touch on the truth of the Gospel itself') can easily be overlooked because in the end they don't affect the TRUTH of the Gospel.
For example: some Christians believe you have to be baptized to enter Heaven. This of course isn't true, and the heart of the Gospel bears this out. But naturally, one would have to ask 'Why hasn't this 'believer' NOT been baptized?' because the veracity of such a one's salvation may hinge on the answer... was it a deathbed confession that saved his soul? or is he being cavalier about the express command of God to BE seriously? In the case of the latter I'd question whether or not that person is genuinely saved... Remember, there is such a thing as 'False Conversion.' People who think they are saved but in reality are not. Jesus said we'd know who is and who is not saved by the fruit their lives bear. That is the real test of a Christian.
So, as long as the conflict of doctrine doesn't specifically touch the 3 foundational points of the Gospel... the rest is merely idiosyncrasy, and so long as those idiosyncrasies don't pervert-- as in add to or take away from the Gospel, there's no reason why we can't fellowship with these, our Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
Again, I've already touched on the Subject of 'What is the Gospel?' at my other blog. Follow the link to check it out, and discover why I have NOT contradicted myself concerning the necessity of Baptism.
----
To address your shock at so many blogs: I've decided to separate my politics from my faith, as the heated arguments that often surround my politics would certainly diminish my efforts at reaching someone on the World Wide Web with the Gospel. I'm in the process of trying to transfer the material at several old blogs to these few newer ones. When that is done I'll delete the old blogs and save myself a lot of headache.
I cannot add to Elashley's comments as eloquently as the rest of you here, but I have an age difference and my beliefs have come about and confirmed themselves to me over the years. I also believe in OSAS and I believe that as a Child of God, we cannot live in disobedience for an indefinite time without some correction or punishment. I believe that as an earthly parent will bring a child home and punish them for public disobedience or embarrassment, that God may call some of his children home early if they continue in disobedience. That is not to say that everyone that dies young is being called home for that reason.
I also believe that the Holy Spirit will show us when we are wrong in our beliefs if we really want to know the truth.
I also feel as Marshall does about the concern over false prophets and their influence on the lost. That is why it is so important to not be putting our own preferences and interpretations over what I believe in some discussions, is clearly defined in the Bible.
Abouna, Mark, Marshall, Elashley, Neil, bubba and D.Dad are some that I really enjoy reading your posts. These are ones coming to mind immediately.
Mark,
Good work.
Blessings
I am sorry to inform you that Bill Hotaling (aka Francis Lynn) passed away about a month ago. He always enjoyed your comments on his "American Values" blog.
Re, "I asked these questions over at the other blog, and in return, I received a lengthy explanation ..."
And STILL you believed in your voodoo. You pretend to want more information, then you cling to your original ideas anyway, which is why I don't trust you to say what you think, or to think what you say.
If you'e never going to change your mind, then why even get into discussions or arguments with anyone?
That's why you're a joke, to me, and it's why what you think doesn't matter to me: because it really, apparently, to judge from your own remarks, doesn't matter at all.
Yes. I'm still pissed at you for the previous post.
TAKE. IT. DOWN.
You don't even know it makes you look like a prideful, judgmental, ignorant idiot.
I'm trying to help you help yourself: Take It Down.
ER, two points:
1. If I am such a joke to you, why do you feel the need to challenge me? Why do you get so angry if my opinion means nothing to you? Is it possible I make you doubt your own beliefs?
2. Why should I take the post down? I will admit, since you and I came to a partial agreement concerning the Diety of Christ, I sincerely considered taking it down, but then, you seem to take such delight in directing your amen corner to it.
Why should I deny you the pleasure you obviously get when you believe you have made a fool of me?
I'll let you in on a little factoid about me: I am extremely stubborn and when someone (other than God)commands me to do something, you can bet your life I won'tdo it, out of pure spite.
Heck, even if it is God doing the commanding I still tend to refuse, as humans often do.
Well my view is just more people out their trying to do away with something good in peoples lifes to wake them up eckhart is helping people all over this world to be more christ like and guess what it is working he does feel the peace of God and he does believe in God even the bible says believe in me now.this same type book more or less was writen in the 1800 by mulford it is also a good book the point it to be more like christ and let go of your ego and see your own wrong doing in your life.Every one has the right to except god how ever they choose just like in the book of john reads their will be many lands that means diffrent ways of beleiving and as long as we do try to put God in our life how ever we want with who we are is good.Eckhart did not say in anything he has writen their is no sin he says we all create our own evil and that is nothing but true.Do not judge something if you only have but a closed mind and think your way is the only way because Gods way is the only way and he is the only being that gives the final judgment.Believe how ever you wish just believe.
Post a Comment