Pages

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Christian commitment


From a Christian perspective, my faith rests in the historical life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The faith doesn't rest on the historicity of particular OT events. 
The truth of Christianity is grounded in the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection rather than the inerrancy of the Bible. If Jesus rose from the dead, Christianity would still be true even if it were the case that some things in the Bible are not. 
These statements seem like they could have been uttered by the same person. In fact, they were uttered by two different people. One is a seminary prof., the other a Christian college prof. 
Now, to my knowledge, the college prof is well to the right of the seminary prof. on the theological spectrum. I think he believes the Bible is actually much more historical than the seminary prof. 
But in terms of their intellectual commitments, it's hard to distinguish their positions. There may be a difference in degree in how they view the actual historicity of Scripture, but both of them take the same position in principle. Even though one of them has a more conservative view of Scripture than the other, he's not committed to that view. 
Absent strong commitment to the truth of God's revealed word, there's no real distance between liberal and conservative theology. These become adjacent squares on the sidewalk. You can go from one to the other in one short step. 
Keep in mind that Christian faith is ultimately about your ultimate commitments. In a pinch, what are you prepared to throw over the back of the sled to stay ahead of the wolves? 

9 comments:

  1. Steve, the problem is that 1. not every Christian is as knowledgeable as you are in theology, apologetics, philosophy (etc.), and 2. not every Christian is as intelligent as you are such that even given all that you know, they wouldn't be able to process it like you do. You have an advantage that simple Christians don't (I include myself in that group).

    There are many Christians who can't quite reconcile in their minds some Biblical statements and the historical and scientific evidence that appears to contradict the OT; along with the apparent internal contradictions and/or discrepancies in the Bible. So, in order to preserve their faith and to help preserve the faith of other professing Christians they distinguish between Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy (even though etymologically their meanings are the same). Then there's also the use of this distinction for the purposes of evangelistic apologetics.

    Of course one way to respond is to say that if a professing Christian isn't willing to submit to inerrancy despite all the evidence to the contrary in his or her mind, then that should disqualify that person from being considered a Christian (by both others and by herself). That such a person is probably not yet truly saved (maybe even non-elect). However, God ordains both ends and means. That includes the means of the mental reasons someone has to believe and not to believe in the truth of the Bible.

    Many people reason the way Galileo did when he allegedly said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." They reason that if God really exists then the evidence for his existence may not contradict reason (even if may go beyond reason). By their reasoning, the only way to reconcile and affirm the (general) truth of Scripture is to place inerrancy as a secondary non-essential dogma of the faith. They may even argue that while inerrancy is true, the Bible isn't clear as to which kind of inerrancy is true. Then they'll point to the very disagreements between the Geisler-like group and the Licona-like group as evidence.

    For myself, as a Van Tillian presupper, I believe reason should submit to Scripture and not the other way around (or as Luther distinguished between the magisterial and ministerial use of reason). Also, I think the vast majority of people (both Christian and non-Christian) have way too high a view of science and history (which itself is dependent on empirical evidence; e.g. in examining documents, archaeological artifacts etc.). Something which both Van Tillian and (especially) Clarkian presuppositionalism points out. Unfortunately, most Christians aren't aware of or persuaded by presuppositional apologetics. What's worse, most presuppositionalists are unsophisticated and make presuppositionalism look really bad (e.g. Sye Ten Bruggencate and other Sye-Clones).

    I'm of the opinion that without a foundation in presuppositional apologetics the average Christian is susceptible to apostasy because of the militancy and ubiquity of modern atheism (on the internet, TV, and movies). Such that to preserve the faith of Christians apart from some form of presuppositionalism will require defenders of inerrancy to either to 1. seriously step up their focus on resolving absolutely ALL apparent Biblical contradictions/discrepancies/errors and making them know publicly and freely (i.e. in public domain and not behind a paywall or a copyright); OR 2. encourage Christians to shut their eyes to the outside world and live/interact only in their Christian ghettos and sub-cultures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My post wasn't referring to the average layman, but to two academics. Moreover, the average layman doesn't distinguish between inerrancy and infallibility. These distinctions are emanating from apologists and theologians.

      Delete
    2. You have a pernicious habit of making excuses for doubters. The Bible never does that. The Bible rebukes doubters. Lack of faith in God's word is something to repent of, not excuse. Don't play the Devil's apprentice.

      Delete
    3. I had a very devout grandmother who was undereducated and theologically primitive. But she had a rock solid faith. One doesn't need to be brilliant or knowledgable to have unwavering faith in God's word. I daresay many "simple Christians" are stronger believers than many theological sophisticates.

      Delete
    4. Moreover, the average layman doesn't distinguish between inerrancy and infallibility.

      Academics make the distinction partly in order to preserve their own faith and the faith of laymen who are crying out for answers (sometimes with literal tears). According to the (admittedly) anecdotal statements of academics like W.L. Craig, Mike Licona, Craig Blomberg and others, such distinctions and the downgrading of inerrancy to secondary importance has saved a number of Christians from losing their faith as well as resulting in some apostates returning to the faith.

      Of course pragmatism and what "works" isn't always true or right. Also, I agree that defending God's honor and truth is more important than the salvation of human souls (as important as the latter is as well). As it's written, "let God be found true, though every man be found a liar" (Rom. 3:4 NASB).

      But it's really sad whenever one hears stories of people who lose their faith because they couldn't seem to reconcile some apparent Bible contradiction(s) based on some particular version of inerrancy. For example, when, how many times and under what circumstances the rooster(s) crowed during Peter's denial of Christ.

      Delete
    5. There has never been a time when there are so many resources available to laymen to field objections to the faith. Many outstanding books as well as lots of high quality material from various online venues.

      Downgrading inerrancy doesn't restore apostates. They aren't returning to the faith they had.

      An untested faith is a weak faith at best, and a nominal faith at worst. If you redefine the faith, based on what they are prepared to believe, then they won't lose *that* faith, but that's makes them rather than revelation the standard of comparison.

      Delete
    6. I didn't realize you posted more.

      You have a pernicious habit of making excuses for doubters.

      I don't mean to make excuses. I just sympathize with doubters.

      The Bible never does that. The Bible rebukes doubters. Lack of faith in God's word is something to repent of, not excuse.

      Agreed.

      The Bible never does that. The Bible rebukes doubters. Lack of faith in God's word is something to repent of, not excuse.

      I don't mean to, if I am.

      One doesn't need to be brilliant or knowledgable to have unwavering faith in God's word. I daresay many "simple Christians" are stronger believers than many theological sophisticates.

      I wholeheartedly agree. Many Christians (including myself) need to apply Psalm 131:1 to themselves.

      O LORD, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes haughty; Nor do I involve myself in great matters, Or in things too difficult for me.

      The problem is that in our modern world of media it's SO easy for Christians to become overly sophisticated for their own good. It sometimes happens that zealous professing Christians who take up apologetics out of apparent love for God and evangelistic love for men to end up losing their faith because they couldn't reconcile a Bible contradiction. Or a bunch of them that had a cumulative effect on their psyche.

      I see you posted more. But I won't respond since I mostly agree with you. I suppose what I'm saying is coming from my own uncertainty as to which version of inerrancy to hold that's in keeping with and derived from the Bible but doesn't go beyond it.

      Delete
    7. typo correction:

      My statement, "I don't mean to, if I am." was in response to

      Don't play the Devil's apprentice.

      Delete
    8. Many outstanding books as well as lots of high quality material from various online venues.

      I've included some of the online stuff on a blog if anyone reading this is interested.

      Resources for Dealing with Alleged Bible Contradictions, Discrepancies and Errors

      Delete