Pages

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Father, Son, and Holy Writ

I’m going to comment on this post:



The problem with many Evangelicals is that we can come dangerously close to worshiping the Bible. As Evangelical theologian James Sawyer once said in jest, we worship the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Holy Bible.

So, in our best moments, we will condemn anything that smells of idolatry concerning the Scriptures. We know that the Bible is not the fourth member of the Trinity.

I am really saying nothing new or extraordinary here.

I agree with Michael. He’s not saying anything new or extraordinary. Rather, he’s recycling a stock rhetorical smear tactic which liberals use to slander Bible-believing Christians. If you’re a Bible-believing Christian, liberals accuse you of bibliolatry. You bow down to a paper pope.

It’s striking that Michael would resort to that impious, underhanded tactic.


Now, let me cease with the self-deprecation for a moment.

I don’t see any self-deprecation in Michael’s post. Rather, I see him deprecating Bible-believing Christians.


The historic message of the Bible needs to take precedence over the theological nature of the Bible. And here is where I feel we Evangelicals, in our zeal and love for the Bible, taint the Gospel with unnecessary additives. These additives, more often than not, create red herrings where we can end up leaving Jesus out altogether as we defend against thousands of claims of Bible contradictions. Further, I believe that this defense needs to be exclusively concerned with the historicity of the resurrection of Christ (“Resurrection Apologetics”). If Christ is risen from the grave, Christianity is true, no matter how many contradictions one thinks they have found. And if Christ did not rise from the grave, Christianity is false, no matter how harmonious the Bible shows to be. In short, I don’t have to convince anyone of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture in order to introduce them to my Savior. I just have to make a case that the historicity of the story of Christ contained in the Bible is reliable enough to warrant their belief.

i) The “additives” that Michael excoriates are Biblical teachings. Teachings that he himself acknowledges to be Biblical. It’s interesting to see him characterize Biblical teachings as “additives.”

ii) An evangelistic message needn’t be centered on the Resurrection, or even mention the Resurrection. Typically, an evangelistic message is centered on the cross. An evangelistic message stresses our sinfulness, and desperate need for a Savior. Of course, we need a Risen Savior. A dead Savior won’t do. But that’s a presupposition of an evangelistic message.

iii) When Jesus spoke with Nicodemus (Jn 3), did he focus on the Resurrection? When Jesus spoke with the woman at the well (Jn 4), did he focus on the Resurrection? When Jesus spoke with the blind man (Jn 9), did he focus on the Resurrection? When Jesus delivered the Break of Life discourse (Jn 6), did he focus on the Resurrection?

iv) It’s one thing to say we should emphasize the Resurrection, quite another to say we should give both believers and unbelievers a list of optional Bible teachings.

Imagine attending a church pastored by St. John or St. Paul where the ushers distribute a brochure of Biblical teachings you can disbelieve and still be a “committed servant of God.”

Can Michael point to any place in the Gospels, Book of Acts, NT Epistles, or Revelation, where we’re told we can disregard various teachings of Scripture?

v) Speaking of which:


Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Lk 1:1-4).

Does Luke say it’s okay if you only believe an “essential” core of his Gospel?


30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (Jn 20:30-31).

Does John say it’s okay if you only believe an “essential” core of his Gospel?

Michael likes to drape himself in the mantle of the gospel and the Resurrection, which sounds very devout, and makes his critics look legalistic by comparison, but notice the glaring contrast between his approach and NT Christianity.

11 comments:

  1. I have never understood the charge of "bible idolatry". If scripture is God's word, then I think it is kind of obvious that he wouldn't stutter. It just seems kind of reasonable, and that doesn't mean that we "worship" the bible, but we do hold it as our authority, because it came from the one who gave us life. If that is idolatry, then Mr. Patton can count me guilty on all counts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's hope Patton doesn't think Rev 22:19 is "inessential"!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the engagement. If you look at the whole article, you will see that the word "essential" has a context. I said that these issues are not essential when presenting the Gospel and engagement in them may cause people to fail to talk about the person ad work of Christ. But these issues, especially the inspiration of Scripture, will definitely be dealt with. I believe that they are part of historic orthodoxy and to deny them is to fall into great error which will effect every aspect of ones life. We see this going on with the homosexual stuff right now. It is tragic that the Bible is no longer an authority in any way right now in our land. We have to find common ground to present our case. In the case of the courts, it is natural theology. In the case of the situation I am talking about in evangelizing skeptics, it is historicity.

    But one does not have to convert someone to complete orthodoxy before Christ's death and resurrection for their sins is presented. Once one trusts Christ, all other issues will begin to take care of themselves as, for the first time, the person has a chance to accept them. As a Calvinist (which, if I am not mistaken, you are), this concept should be all the more unremarkable! Even if one is a presuppositionalist.

    It is hard to believe that you find no commendation for what I am saying or trying to do. None at all. We are obviously on the same team. Why shoot a fellow soldier in the back simply because he does not fight the exact same way as you. Don't we buth have similar enemies to fight? Should not that take up our time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      You’re dissembling. Your argument isn’t limited to what’s (allegedly) essential to evangelism.

      You use the identical argument with reference to believers. You say we should treat inspiration, inerrancy, the authorship of the Pastorals, the special creation of Adam and Eve, &c., as nonessentials for Christians. You say that when we make those “essential” or “foundational” doctrines, we risk driving Christians away from the faith when some of them cease to believe in those doctrines.

      So stop pretending that all you’re talking about is evangelism or apologetics. You’ve staked out a position that goes way beyond that.

      Also, spare me the friendly fire complaint. You yourself initiated the friendly fire incident by firing on Christians who don’t share your priorities. This is return fire on my part.

      Delete
    2. Michael,

      You played the bibliolatry card. Don't act all wide-eye when you resort to a deliberately provocative, incendiary, and scurrilous charge. Don't pretend to be sandbagged when your rhetorical tactics invite an utterly predictable pushback.

      Delete
    3. Michael uses expressions like "taint the Gospel" and then complains about pushback from people who have his wacky idea about preaching the whole counsel of God?

      Delete
    4. "As a Calvinist (which, if I am not mistaken, you are), this concept should be all the more unremarkable!"

      As a Calvinist, I'm free to preach the ENTIRE Gospel, knowing that it won't drive away the Elect.

      Delete
  4. Funny how "common ground" as "natural theology" is tossed out - to a presuppositionalist - as if it's a "given". Someone isn't all that familiar with presup. Or that he's actually addressing confessional articles with his statements on inspiration, for instance. What do you *expect* from confessionally Reformed folks, Michael? Weren't you paying attention in class on that point?

    ReplyDelete
  5. He calls this response "emotionalism" on twitter- http://bit.ly/10jb4GK

    ReplyDelete
  6. When I share the gospel I talk about the claims of Christ, His person and work on the cross. I can't ever recall discussing inerrancy during evangelism. And if it came up I would have no problem telling a sinner that the God who created all things, who is the God of truth, speaks without error in His word.

    In fact, that's all the more reason to come to Him.

    RZ, your comments on CMP's posts were right on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My reply is specifically to this point--"iii) When Jesus spoke with Nicodemus (Jn 3), did he focus on the Resurrection? When Jesus spoke with the woman at the well (Jn 4), did he focus on the Resurrection? When Jesus spoke with the blind man (Jn 9), did he focus on the Resurrection? When Jesus delivered the Break of Life discourse (Jn 6), did he focus on the Resurrection??"

    Why would Jesus focus on the resurrection in any of these instances when the resurrection hasn't happened yet?

    ReplyDelete