Inerrancy and Baggage

Inerrancy and Baggage

Does using terms like "infallible" or "inspired" carry more baggage than "inerrancy?"

The Original Lutheran Marriage: Love and Marriage Aren’t Always Like a Horse and Carriage

Part 3 of the Luther on Marriage series from Justin Taylor

http://theresurgence.com/2010/10/13/original-lutheran-marriage-not-always-like-horse-and-carriage

The Wrong Way To Read The Bible

Two opposite errors exist in approaching the Bible. One is not to read it. The other is to know it so well that you miss Jesus. Jesus pointed out this error: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40).

Are you surprised to believe this error exists? We constantly talk about reading and studying the Bible as an unqualified good. But clearly, the way we read the Bible is just as important as reading it.

So how can you know if you might be reading the Bible, looking for life, but missing Jesus completely? Here are a few clues:

1) You read the Bible to reinforce what you believe, not challenge what you believe.
2) You imagine yourself as the type of person who believes the things you read about.
3) You think the things you read are especially applicable for people you know, but not for you.
4) You imagine yourself as the hero of the story, not the person or people who are unbelieving. You frequently ask in your heart, “How could these people be so unbelieving?” For instance, when you read the story of the Israelites wandering in the desert you might say, “How could those Israelites grumble about food and drink when they just saw God part the Red Sea?” But you are completely blind to how you grumble at work or home when you’re afraid of losing something.
5) You love the attention garnered from your knowledge of the Bible, but give little thought to how you have applied what you have read.

Maybe the Bible should come with a warning label: “Beware: reading this book incorrectly will make you twice as fit for hell as when you began.”

Don’t miss Jesus. Go to him and find life.

This post was written by Dave Dorr and was originally published at
http://theresurgence.com/2010/10/10/the-wrong-way-to-read-the-bible

What Is the New Perspective on Paul? How Should It Be Assessed?

What Is the New Perspective on Paul? How Should It Be Assessed?

Here is a great synopsis and simple critique of the "New Perspective on Paul" for those who don't have the time to read Sanders, Dunn, and Wright.

D.A. Carson on "What the Church Needs"

I found this video to be both challenging and thought provoking. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Trade In Your Mud Pies

Here is a great post from Dustin Neeley on exchanging our worldly affections for greater intimacy with Christ. It encouraged me...I hope it encourages you as well.

http://theresurgence.com/2010/10/03/trade-in-your-mud-pies

Tim Keller on Christianity's Relevance for Today's Culture

www.thegospelcoalition.org

When Martin Met Katie

Here is the link the second post of Justin Taylor's series, Luther and Marriage.

http://theresurgence.com/2010/10/05/when-martin-met-katie

Luther: The 40 Year Old Virgin?

Check out this post from Justin Taylor. It is the first in a series on Martin Luther and marriage.

http://theresurgence.com/2010/09/28/luther-the-40-year-old-virgin

Book Reviews From My Summer Reading

An Introduction to the New Testament by Carson and Moo

I found this volume super helpful. Carson and Moo did a great job of handling the arguments and controversies. I walked away feeling that I had been given all of the necessary information. The authors were not only careful to give all sides of the argument, but they were also careful not to make assertions without backing them up. My copy is filled with highlighter marks and comments. I'm certain that I will be referencing this book for years to come.

An Introduction to the New Testament by David deSilva

Another great volume. Dr. desilva's strength is in giving an incredible amount of background and context information. In this regard I would rate deSilva's introduction higher than Carson and Moo's (to be fair to the authors they did state that it wasn't their purpose for the volume).Where I wouldn't rate deSilva's volume as high as Carson and Moo's is in its use of assertions without adequate substantiation. In other words, I heard what he was saying, but I didn't understand why his view was right or wrong, since opposing arguments were not always given. All-in-all I think that deSilva's and Carson and Moo's introductions work will in tandem.

Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns

This volume was disappointing. Dr Enns comes right out in the beginning of his book asserting that it isn't intended to be academic, but rather to aid and encourage students who were looking for direction. This might have been my greatest frustration with his book. Is it responsible teaching to make assertions about such important issues without including any challenging arguments? I don't find this approach helpful since it recruits adherents who don't know all of the information, and attempts to make those who disagree feel ridiculous. Inspiration and Incarnation is entirely one-sided, and demeaning of mainstream evangelical scholarship. For a book that boasted a desire to be helpful to the discouraged, I don't think that Dr. Enns took enough care not to discourage students who might deal with the evidence and come to different conclusions.

A New Kind of Christianity by Brian McLaren

This book is both properly and improperly titled. What McLaren is propagating is not new, but it is different; so different that I wouldn't call it Christian at all. McLaren's view of Scripture is so nebulous that I don't think that he could really assert anything meaningful from the Biblical text (even to support his own world-view). He denies human depravity, the fall, the existence of hell, and even the exclusivity of Christ. In the end of the book he questions whether "Christianity" is even a helpful term. I think for McLaren it isn't. For the most part McLaren's book is old liberalism repackaged for a post-modern audience. I would rename this book "A Generous Unorthodoxy" or maybe as one scholar has, "A New Kind of Apostasy." (I know that this is a harsh review, and it is not my intention to mock Brian McLaren. I do think that this book is unorthodox and harmful, and for that reason I have used as plain of language as I could to call it as I see it)

Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck

I found this book to be insightful, though the title can be a little bit deceiving. The volume is indeed about the Emergent church, but it's about more than just that. DeYoung and Kluck did a great job of engaging the issues and controversies of contemporary and post-modern church life. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is looking for clarity about what church should and should not be, and about what Christians should and should not be about. I have to note though that I enjoyed DeYoung's chapters more than Kluck's. As the author's note in the introduction, Kluck's chapters are there to help people who think DeYoung is boring, get through the book. Kluck at times came off as a bit antagonistic to me, and I thought DeYoung's portions were interesting enough. Not to say that Kluck didn't contribute to the book, I think he did, but I related better to DeYoung.

The Grand Design

Here is the link to a review article of Stephen Hawking's newest volume written by Dr. Edgar Andrews (Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London).

http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/the-grand-design#more

Telephone Game Gospels?

Here is the link to an interesting critique of Bart Ehrman's telephone game analogy.

http://www.davidbsloan.com/blog.html#007

I Want One !

Doubt vs Faith: What You Talkin' About, Willis?

One of my favorite shows as a boy was Diff’rent Strokes, most remembered by it’s star Gary Coleman (who died this year) and that iconic phrase, “What you talkin’ about, Willis?”. This phrase worked its way into our house years ago and it conveys the same basic message that it did on Diff’rent Strokes: Whatever you are trying to say, I’m not following you. Recently, while reading and blogging, I have found this phrase echoing through my head. As an ultra-opinionated guy, it’s often because I don’t happen to agree with the author. Sometimes it’s because writers put forth ideas that are so nebulous, ideas so layered in double-meanings, that I find myself wanting to post “sp-sp-spit it out junior” in the comments section. An idea that tends to fit into the first category is what’s being put forth as the new litmus test of faith for many Christian thinkers: Doubt.

That’s right, faith equals doubt. Sound confusing? No longer is doubt to be considered an obstacle to faith, but rather the legitimizer of faith. Some seem bent on the idea that because the testimony of the Bible is sometimes doubt-worthy (it's not), our doubts should be embraced as the new beginning of a more realistic faith. Under this new definition, the Bible is no longer to be considered a primary, rather Christians must look to Jesus for an example of how to live (or journey if you prefer). I have two concerns with this way of thinking. First, as I have stated before, if we cannot trust the account given to us by the gospel writers, than we cannot reasonably know or assert anything about Jesus’ life and character. Second, without a trustworthy Biblical account of the life and teaching of Jesus, adherents to this strange new doubt/faith are forced (or inclined) to follow a Jesus created in their own image; which in reality, turns out to be no Jesus at all.

While I agree that there is a sanctifying work in doubt, I do not believe, as some, that it should be celebrated as privileged spirituality. Writers like Brian McLaren have infused his readers with ideas that equate doubt with humility and accuse clarity of being dishonest (or unexamined). Within this paradigm, one might conclude that confusion is the new acumen (intellect).

Let me clarify (because I think clarity is important) that I too believe that spiritual honesty is paramount, and that doubts are part of the human condition. I do not think that doubt is a sin. What I do think is that God desires to (like Thomas the apostle) move us past our doubts, not build a religion out of it. Thomas doubted, but he later learned that God was who He said He was (clarity). This kind of humility was exhibited by the father of a demon tormented child and his willingness to cry out, “help my unbelief” (Mk 9:24). Throughout my life and ministry I have been drawn to “good questions”. Sometimes these questions have led me to a submissive heart and then good answers. At other times my questions have led me to unhealthy thoughts and misguided understandings. In these times it has often taken a friend who cares enough to ask, “What you talkin’ about Willis?” to restore in me a heart that humbly cries, “my Lord and my God.”

“Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
(John 20:27)

An Argument Discredited

Posted By Kevin DeYoung on his blog Restless and Reformed (Link below)

Of all the bad arguments against inerrancy, the most frequent is also one of the worst: namely, that the idea of error-less autographs was an invention of Old Princeton.

The once (and briefly) credible idea that Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield invented inerrancy has been shown to be resoundingly false. Scholars like John Woodbridge and Richard Muller have demonstrated convincingly that the doctrine of complete biblical truthfulness is not a Princetonian invention. Clement of Rome (30-100) described “the Sacred Scriptures” as “the true utterance of the Holy Spirit.” Polycarp (65-155) called them “the oracles of the Lord.” Irenaeus (120-202) claimed that the biblical writers “were incapable of a false statement.” Origen (185-254) stated, “The sacred volumes are fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, and there is no passage either in the Law or the Gospel, or the writings of an Apostle, which does not proceed from the inspired source of Divine Truth.” Augustine (354-430) explained in a letter to Jerome, “I have learnt to ascribe to those Books which are of the Canonical rank, and only to them, such reverence and honour, that I firmly believe that no single error due to the author is found in any of them.” It was not modernism that invented inerrancy. It was modernism that undermined inerrancy. (Why We’re Not Emergent, 76-77)

In other words, while inerrancy may be a relatively recent addition to the theological lexicon, the truth it means to protect is as old as Christianity.


An Argument Discredited

Who’s Afraid of Inerrancy?

Here is a great post from Kevin DeYoung's blog concerning a conversation between Tim Keller, Alister McGrath, and Brian McLaren on inerrancy.

Who’s Afraid of Inerrancy?

Generous Unorthodoxy

Brian McLaren's new book "A new kind of Christianity" asserts 19th century liberalism and ignores the creeds of historical Christianity." Here are the links to a couple solid review articles posted earlier this year by Scot McKnight and Tim Challies.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/march/3.59.html

http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/a-new-kind-of-christianity

And/or, watch a panel discussion between Albert Mohler, Jim Hamilton, Bruce Ware, Stephen Wellum, and Gregory Wills

http://www.sbts.edu/resources/chapel/chapel-spring-2010/panel-discussion-a-new-kind-of-christianity-brian-mclaren-recasts-the-gospel/

What Is Salvation?

Growing up, I was told that salvation is believing that Jesus died for me, and asking Him to come and live in my heart. I still believe that this is true, but as I have matured in my faith I've come to learn much more about what it means to be saved. In order to gain a better perspective on salvation, I think one needs to go back to the story of the first human persons, Adam and Eve.

We have all heard or read Adam and Eve's story, but if you’re like me you have walked away from a reading of it with a very shallow understanding of what actually transpired in the Garden of Eden on that dark, but glorious day. Was Adam and Eve's sin that they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Yes, but that's not the most significant part of it. Remember what the serpent said to Eve when He was tempting her to disobey the Lord's command;

"The serpent said to the woman, 'You surely will not die!
“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'” (vv. 4-5)

The temptation wasn't to the eat fruit, so much as to gain the knowledge. Indeed, this knowledge would make her like God. No longer would Adam and Eve need to seek God about what was right or wrong; with this knowledge, they could decide for themselves. No longer would Adam and Eve have to be dependant on God for the revelation of what they should and should not do; now they could be the masters of their own destinies. Isn't it obvious that humanity has battled God for control ever since. Isn't it the battle that you and I fight everyday? Who is going to be in control of my life and destiny? Herein lies the big questions, which more often leads to our greatest rebellion.

So back to our initial question, what is Salvation? Salvation is surrendering your life and destiny to the one who should have control of it in the first place. This is the significance of baptism, my death and Christ's life becoming realized in my human body. Salvation is realizing that Life is not about me, and that I am not at a place to rightly judge my own destiny, because without Christ I am not at a place to judge what is best from what is evil. Salvation is surrender. Salvation is my death. Salvation is the exchanging of my life, for the life of another, my glorious and victorious Savior Jesus Christ.

Is Post-Modern Liberalism really Pre-Modern Gnosticism?

A thought postulated by reforming Lutherans in a new article from Christianity Today. Here is the link

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/septemberweb-only/46-31.0.html

"Scholars and Snake-Handlers"

An interesting article in this months Christianity Today about evangelicals and the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature). Here is the link

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/september/4.16.html?start