themattscott

1. How do we know who Jesus is? What informs our knowledge of Jesus? How do we know Jesus is who he claims to be?

1.5 I'm saying the Bible is infallible; theology is fallible. If the Bible is fallible, then is there merit in theology at all?

2. how do we know what parts of the Bible are true and which parts are not? But there IS an inherent distrust of organized and established authority in modern evangelical circles...the main reason the Emergent church (indeed most alt. churches) exist is to separate themselves from the lazy, business based established churches that put out two-disc worship cds, and have "lost touch." They seem to only believe half of St. Augustine's rather pithy quote about the church "I know she's a whore, but she's my mother." ...and, honestly, would you not have bristled if I had quoted something from the Westminster Confession of Faith?

2.5 yes, they are both equally prone to error, however Calvin and Luther strove to have no proofs for their claims other than those informed by other scripture. The previous two used the Bible and their own understanding of said scripture passages to make their "theology." The reason people believe the former and not the latter is because their theology is closer to Biblical truth than the others. BUT if the Bible is fallible, then could one not say that Arianism (the belief that Jesus was created, and therefore not divine) might be true because the writers of the New Testament might have misunderstood Jesus' claims of divinity?

Let me explain... no... there is too much. Let me sum up...

1- No, I do not believe that the truth revealed in the Bible ceases to be true if there be human error in writing, understanding, copying or translation (or even grammar). Our source of absolute truth is the person and work of Jesus Christ -- Jesus says I AM the truth.

1.5 I guess I could ask you the same kind of question. If the veracity of the Bible is reliant on it being infallible, then our source of absolute truth would be the theology or doctrine of infallibility rather than the Word of God. It is similar to how we cannot say that the Bible is true simply because science proves it is true (even though the Bible and science arguably do not conflict) because that, in essence, would be forcing God to jump through the hoops of man's logic. In the same way, how can we say the Bible is only true because our theology makes it so? If God and the message of Christ are only as strong as our doctrine and theology, then I do not think we have a high enough view of them.

2- I do not speak for the "emergent church" but I believe we should read everything and listen to those few whose words and ideas we can measure against the truth revealed in the Bible. (I do believe it is true, in case you were wondering...) I have nothing against people over 30, though sometimes I wouldn't mind being a hippie.

2.5 - They are all equally human and therefore equally prone to error. I would hold them all to the same standards.

(Oh, and I am great. I am staying busy reading, writing a lot of poetry for school, and that whole full time job/marriage thing.)

I had a long post, but decided on a list of questions instead (outside of this Torah argument...which I am still confused as to how that conclusion was reached).

1. If any part of the Bible is human error (you say grammatical or otherwise...lets stick with the otherwise) does it cease to be a source of absolute truth? What is our source of absolute truth?

1.5 I hear a lot of talk about reading theology. Any theological system will be errant in some way, but is theology even necessary if its own basis is fallible?

2. I notice this particularly in emergent church circles (which I do think has some good insights), but there is a palpable distrust of most established authority...

"So we are supposed to just accept certain biblical exegesis just because it is really old, and those people responsible for it are supposedly smarter and wiser than us?"

Is this a valid point, or is this simply a rehashing of the 60's "Don't trust anyone over thirty" argument? We are a priesthood of believers, but even you admit Matt has a better understanding of theology than you do. So on what basis do we choose who we listen to?

2.5 As a dovetail: Are "modern" Biblical theologians (Luther, Calvin) any more suspect than early church theologians (Philo and Arius)?

...And things are going fine at DCHS. How are you?

I should correct what I said regarding the 2 Peter verse, the prophetic books are not in the Torah... but what I meant was that the prophets/prophecy that the verse is referring to would be the Jewish prophetic books of scripture like Jeremiah and Isaiah, rather than the entire Bible.

I guess I will reluctantly bite again. So we are supposed to just accept certain biblical exegesis just because it is really old, and those people responsible for it are supposedly smarter and wiser than us? I guess my first question would be based on what qualifications? because as far as I know, the Bible clearly establishes the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2). The argument that its not my place to challenge or even reject exegesis if I cannot establish that it is held up in scripture seems weak, and I'm glad people like Martin Luther didn't have this mentality. Also, if we are going to take the oldest and wisest exegesis to hang out hats on, perhaps it IS relevant to consider what the first Christians believed? I would argue strongly that it is very relevant... not only what they believed about scripture and their own writing, but also what they believed about things like heaven and hell, because that is the theological framework that all of Christ's teaching stem from. I for one, would like to see a return in considering this historical context in relation to our interpretations of the Bible. Certainly there are smarter, more educated people than myself -- that is why I read the things they have written. (I must admit that Matt reads far more theology than I can handle...)

I would also respond that in 2 Peter when he talks about prophecy he is referring to the Jewish Torah again... And Christ in Matthew 5 I believe is speaking of his own teachings (as fulfillment of the Torah) being without error, but neither reference is referring to the Bible in its entirety as we know it today. I would agree with you that "God breathed" is a far more powerful language than inspired. I think it purposely reminds the reader of the language in Genesis 2 when God breathed life into man. Just as he both created and sustains us, so he created and sustains his living word.

I think we fundamentally disagree on if the truths in the Bible (ie that the claims of Christ are true) are diminished by whether or not we hold that the entire Bible is without human error (grammatical or not). I guess I can see it as a slippery slope, but I don't see them as dependent upon each other anymore than I think that taking parts of the Bible as less than literal (poetry or not) would then make it fallible. I guess it's too much all or none thinking for me... If there are parts of the Bible that are non literal, I would argue that they are intentional metaphors, or that in their original oral tradition they were understood as non literal stories or poems used to teach rather than historical accounts. In other words, I don't think you can just say, "I don't like this so I'm not going to take it literally."

Anyway, those are my thoughts, I will let Matt handle the leading people astray by blogging issue, since it is his blog... and for the record I don't think you are a fuddy-duddy and I hope all is well at DCHS.

oops, I forgot to finish my however :)
*Two Qualification*
1. Jesus himself says that every jot and tittle of the law is without error, when I mention "contradictions" I am simply referring to small grammatical and typographical errors (of which there are scant few) due to the plethora of modern translations (the reason we have so many is, I believe, due to the differences of language rather than content)...

2. I meant to say that "I am not advocating NOT questioning what we are taught BLINDLY." in the last paragraph...those darn double negatives.

And I would also answer a hearty and unequivocal "yes" to your questions in the first and second paragraph, outside of the believer's belief of inerrancy in what would become Paul's scriptures, as the question is irrelevant.

I know that my post might have sounded more like a fuddy-duddy afraid of questions. Believe me, it is not. One of the single greatest problems in "Evangelical America" is the failure to ask hard questions. As a teacher, I have seen this on a first hand basis. However,
There are grammatical mistakes that happen in translation (I have, myself, noticed some gramatically incorrect sentences in my ESV), there are vocabulary nuances lost in the Greek/Hebrew to English translation (a good example being the passage where Jesus asks Peter if he "agape"s him and peter responds that he "phileo"s Christ; both are written as "love"), and there are those horrid little "modern day" translations that "preserve" the message but settle for often erroneous and simplistic truisms; These -except the latter- are still the infallible word of God. I make here a distinction between infallibility and inerrancy (though the two cannot be divorced from one another), yet even with typos (though most "contradictions" come more from erroneous exegesis than from the original source...see 2 Peter 1:20 for that one) one needs to understand what the Bible is on a basic philosophical level. It is the Word. God directly chose the writers of the Bible, and "inspired" them is too weak a word. "God Breathed" is a far more potent statement than the meager English conveys. To say that "parts" are unnecessary or erroneous (or even fallible) is to call into question the remainder of the accurate portions. This may seem like a scared reaction to commonly held dogma, but If the Bible is erroneous or fallible in ANYTHING (outside of the occasionally minor and non content informing translation/typos), then one must call into question the claims of Christ. The Bible was cobbled together by different councils over hundreds of years. To say that there were errors in terms of omission, commission, understanding, etc is to say that, somehow, God's will was trumped by human error. If God allowed (or was unable to prevent, as the case could be argued in that instance) infallible aspects to enter the Bible, then we must call into question whether or not the writers understanding of other tenants were somehow "naive" or "misinformed." Again, this seems like startled reaction, but it is not. What if Christ looked at a girl with lust in his heart only once? Christianity is a load of bollocks. It is the same for the Bible's inerrancy and infallibility.

I am not advocating questioning what we are taught. I am a five-point Calvanist, and many people think my views on predestination are wrong. Most of the time the "support" they bring against predestination is that "it is contrary to God's nature to predestine some for eternal damnation." That is not only a fallible understanding of God's nature, but also of man's nature. More often than not, the reasoning is , at its root, one of fear to ascribe God that much power and to admit to our innate human hatred of God.

Finally, in an effort to be honest and challenge the "non-thought" that permeates American Evangelicalism, we need to be wary of leading astray those that we seek to liberate. The danger of such a public medium as blogging, is that the people that "blindly accept" the words of their "intellectual/spiritual elders" could latch onto your questions as truth. Again, I am NOT saying not to question faith, as that is the vehicle for growth, but I am saying that bucking off hundreds of years of biblical exegesis (from people far more attuned/educated/wise to the gospel than we currently are) is folly in its strongest sense.

I don't want to be picky here, but I hear 2 Timothy 3:16 used a lot as a defense of the Bible being God inspired/infallible (many years of private Christian school taught me this, too) and I'm not saying the Bible isn't God breathed BUT when this book was written the "all Scripture" that he was referring to was most likely the Torah, since the Bible as we know it was not compiled till much later than when this letter was written, and the first Christians still considered the Jewish texts to be the only scripture. People do similar things with 2 Timothy 3:16 that they do with Revelation 22:18 and try to stretch it to apply to the entire Bible when historical context really doesn't allow for this. It would cover a multitude of problems, though, wouldn't it?

I also wanted to say that I don't think it is unorthodox to examine the sometimes rather large assumptions we make with traditional evangelical thinking. It is much easier in my opinion to simply accept them as a tenant than to critically think about them. Likewise, it is easier to teach them as a tenant you cannot question without being heretical, than to encourage the church to closely examine them. I don't think it such an easy jump that you make when you say "God is infallible, The Bible is God breathed, therefore the Bible is infallible." Does it necessarily work like that? Is this really that small of a jump to make? Is this a jump that the Bible requires you to make in order to have a worldview that is Biblical? Is this what the first Christians -- those who were closest to Christ believed? The answers to many of these questions is, not necessarily. I doubt very much that those first reading Paul's letters believed them to be infallible. So then, do traditions established by men later, equal a hard and fast truth for us today?

A lot of times when people say you are falling into the realm of unorthodoxy, what they really mean is what you are thinking is dangerous (for the Christian narrative, for the credibility of the Bible, even for the final destination of your soul) and I suppose that wrestling with "basic tenants" of the faith could be a legitimate worry if you were trying to make the Bible say something you simply wished it to say for your own purposes -- creating God in our own image. I however, don't esteem man so highly as to believe that the entire Christian narrative relies on our correct interpretation of the Bible, nor do I believe that there is anything I did to merit my salvation, including correctly interpreting the mysteries of how I or others receive it (Christ followers know, of course, it was through the shed blood of Christ that the world could be reconciled to God). I also trust that when I (or my husband) seek out of sincerity to better know and understand God and how he is revealed to us, that ultimately we will find Him. I trust this because throughout scripture God has made this promise to His people (Deut 4:29, Prov. 8:17, Jer. 29:13, Matt 7:7-8). In fact in Acts 17 Paul tells the Athenians that one of the many purposes of God's detailed design for our lives on earth, from where we live, to time period we are born in, is that we would seek God and find Him. Certainly I am not saying we should not be wary of false teaching, (I think that is pretty well established in scripture as well) but I think that in most cases, taking an honest appraisal, as you say, of the things we believe and the things that others believe lends itself to discernment if we are always going back to see if they hold up to the truth found in the Bible and in the words of Christ. I feel like it is not only a good idea, but that it is our responsibility to think critically about different interpretations of the Bible, to seek God in the difficult theology of our faith, and to wrestle with why it is we believe what we believe. At the very least, because these are the questions that other people are asking about Christianity, and at best because this is how we come to a deeper understanding of who God is and what it is He has done for us.

2 Tim 3:16 -
ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Certainly the writer of Timothy viewed his own work as scripture, there is in no way that he was talking about the Torah, and that verse certainly shuts the door on the possibility that God breathed does not mean human wrought (and those prone to errors).
All sarcasm aside, if you want to talk about Biblical infallibility as a basic Tenant of faith, you are talking about Modern versions of faith. This idea is never mentioned in either the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed.
One more thought on 2 Tim 3:16, the idea that God inspired human book is infallible because it's God "breathed" ends up being a logical jump that I don't think we're really given any reason to take. The idea that the themes presented in the Bible are correct and true has a much stronger case than the idea that the Bible is without factual error.

This goes beyond mere hypothesis and into the realm of unorthodoxy (and not in a good way) if the Bible were to be erroneous, then, well, end of discussion. There would be no reason to believe in it other than for the sake of empty spiritualism, or for an existential high. You might try 2 Timothy 3:16. Notice the "All" rather than the "Some" or "Most." I know that you are merely taking an honest appraisal of your beliefs (which is, unfortunately, rather rare these days), but this is a basic tenant of Christianity. I do not claim that the entire Bible is meant to be taken "literally" (poetry is a figurative representation of literal truth however), but ALL of it is God-Breathed, and therefore, infallible.

First off, I don't ever recall the Bible calling itself an infallible piece of work, in fact I just did a bible gateway search for the word infallible, it never appears. I think I've previously addressed the issue of individual authors adding notes foreboding those who add anything to the text (Revelation 22:18) would certainly pertain to the fact that when copying manuscripts by hand, errors are possible, and during the early centuries before meticulous scribes were involved in the process, slaves where the ones who did the copying work, thus making the number of errors within the text even more likely. But I digress from that vein.

I'm certainly not trying to update the Bible, but we do need to understand the both the content and the issue of accuracy posed within the Bible.

If the question is whether the Bible does indeed have contradictions/inaccuracies then I'm afraid you'll have to let yourself read a Critical Analysis of the Book. It's quite easy to gloss over issues within the Bible itself unless you're looking for them. Just as I'm sure you encourage your students to take a Critical look over the texts you assign them to read, we need to do the same with the Bible. If we blindly assume that the bible is in fact 100% literal, then we end up missing the Beauty and Revolution of the Book.

What is that? The very theme of Reconciliation and that weaves its way from Genesis 2 all the way to Revelation. The ideas presented in the Bible break the mold that was common during the times in which they were written. Whether it be womens rights in the old testament (Men who raped women were to marry the women they raped. this may seem atrocious to us, but during the time in which the book was written raped women zero rights, having a husband provided protection which they would otherwise never get.), or whether it be that violence is not the end all be all fix to everything.

...yet, if we take a less than literal view of the Bible (outside of the intentionally poetic) does not the Bible cease to be the infallible word of God? I'm not quite sure the Bible needs rescue, but people quick to "rescue" it may be doing so in an effort to "update" the Bible for more modern sensibilities; we are living in post-modernity after all.