[...] Weekly Links (5/25/2012) Any degree of skep­ti­cism about the por­trait of Christ, the promises of God, the prin­ci­ples of god­li­ness, and the power of the Holy Spirit, as bib­li­cally pre­sented, has the effect of enslav­ing us to our own alter­na­tive ideas about these things, and thus we miss some­thing of the free­dom, joy, and vital­ity that the real Christ bestows. God is very patient and mer­ci­ful, and I do not sug­gest that those who fall short here thereby for­feit all knowl­edge of Christ, though I rec­og­nize that when one sits loose to Scripture this may indeed hap­pen. But I do main­tain most emphat­i­cally that one can­not doubt the Bible with­out far-reaching loss, both in full­ness of truth and of full­ness of life. If there­fore we have at heart spir­i­tual renewal for soci­ety, for churches and for our own lives, we shall make much of the entire trustworthiness–that is, the inerrancy–of Holy Scripture as the inspired and lib­er­at­ing Word of God. (J.I. Packer, Truth and Power; HT Justin Taylor) [...]

[...] by Richard Shin Any degree of skep­ti­cism about the por­trait of Christ, the promises of God, the prin­ci­ples of god­li­ness, and the power of the Holy Spirit, as bib­li­cally pre­sented, has the effect of enslav­ing us to our own alter­na­tive ideas about these things, and thus we miss some­thing of the free­dom, joy, and vital­ity that the real Christ bestows. God is very patient and mer­ci­ful, and I do not sug­gest that those who fall short here thereby for­feit all knowl­edge of Christ, though I rec­og­nize that when one sits loose to Scripture this may indeed hap­pen. But I do main­tain most emphat­i­cally that one can­not doubt the Bible with­out far-reaching loss, both in full­ness of truth and of full­ness of life. If there­fore we have at heart spir­i­tual renewal for soci­ety, for churches and for our own lives, we shall make much of the entire trustworthiness–that is, the inerrancy–of Holy Scripture as the inspired and lib­er­at­ing Word of God. (J.I. Packer, Truth and Power; HT Justin Taylor) [...]

@Brian C: Ok, would you like to explain what you are having difficulties comprehending?

@James Rednour: Ah, then you weren't like me. I'm not a prophet. I have sympathy for people with struggles. Not with people who completely reject the faith and then lie about it.

No, they would be more effective leaders if they showed humility by saying they needed help and stepping down. This has happened AND the pastor or leader has returned a stronger and more assured person than he was before. What WILL stain their ability to lead is lying to their congregation.

Well, it's different because it's not anything YOU'VE done. It's actually called "Perseverance of the saints." It's not conditioned on anything you do. That's how it is different. How can anyone be assured? You can trust God's promises, one of which is: "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"

Heather, I was once like you believe it or not. I was a self-assured prophet just like yourself, telling people what was clearly true despite their feelings. I hope that you do not come to the point where a doubt in your mind germinates into greater questioning. It's not a comfortable place to be, and your lack of sympathy for those who struggle in this area is unfortunate. It's possible that pastors who are deep in doubt about their faith are trying to work out their faith in practice. Many hope that by pushing through it they can regain that which was lost. Instead you call for them to step down: an act which will forever stain their ability to lead again. That seems short-sighted and wrong to me. The world is no black and white despite your assertions that it is.

"Those who say they “no longer believe” either never believed in the first place or they still believe but are in a dark place."

So how can anyone ever be assured of salvation if they thought they believed but actually did not? How is this position any different from the Arminian doctrine of Conditional Preservation? No one has eternal security in this case.

Great, god bless you and me Heather :) (and all the others too)

@Brian C: Yeeeah, I didn't lie...or read into things. And I don't...really have anxiety. But nice try...see above comment from me to DRT. "Appear well" LOL

@DRT: I don't think you are the enemy. I don't even think Brian is. Just...kind of rude to strangers online sometimes. Online IS a dreadful way of talking (as you pointed out in saying you wished you could spend time with me) sometimes.

@DRT: Actually as I'm thinking about this...this conversation is SO far from the blog post, it's almost rude to Mr. DeYoung at this point. So, Brian's kind of mean and passive aggressive online? I guess I don't really care. Although, I'm a human I did care when I was being insulted. But...probably that all doesn't need to be explained to me. I'll never actually MEET Brian in real life, which is probably for the best. I feel that our personalities won't match until God irons out our kinks in the end.

Heather, Sorry, but given I am a man (I suppose you may have not known that), I was actually doing a couple of things. First, I was trying to help build a bridge to relate to you so that you will not consider me the enemy. Second, I was trying to show you that I was telling the truth and that my wife would vouch for what I am saying. Lastly, I was trying to give you another avenue of research that you could pursue, if you choose to do it. That really is all there is to it.

Heather, my dear, I see that you are troubled by a great many things, anxious to appear well to others, and feel the need to defend yourself to strangers while disparaging someone who meant you no harm as DRT, an impartial third-party, repeatedly brought to your attention. You have repeatedly misrepresented me and lied extensively about my intentions here. When I say that I will pray for someone it's certainly not to cast them into hell and I actually do, have and even now pray for you to discover the freedom from anxiety we have in Christ. So please stop reading into my comments things that aren't there. This conversation long ago lost it's way and became unproductive. Why don't you just give it a rest and move on? Grace and peace to you.

@DRT: Whoa whoa whoa...look, just because we are both women it doesn't make us cookie cutter people.

What do you mean by "as a woman, when that anima is talking to you, that is what you hear."

@DRT: I have to repeat, there really isn't anything to "win." I'm saying, I don't think it's remotely proper for pastors to lie to their congregations. I think that's biblically supported and I think it's fair. Brian does not. Now we have sunk to the point where we're just getting on each other's nerves. Brian likes to pretend he is above this (read: above me) but really...we're both annoying each other. So much so that he basically rhetorically punched me and ran away.

First off, I actually believe you when you say you are praying for me and I appreciate the translation. Even though I am positive you attributed nobler motives to a Brian, when he clearly did not mean to be noble.

1. "You have a lot to learn"....honestly, usually when I hear this, I DO respond with, "well, go ahead what is it." Every once in a while, I meet someone (like Brian) who takes a jab just by saying "oh you have SO much to learn" and walks away. That is what he was doing.

2. Zeal:I honestly am having trouble understanding what this means.

3. Pharasaical Attitude: There WAS no compliment there. I am well aware that "pharisee" is the new "nazi" among Christians. Basically if you disagree you are a Pharisee. I am willing to believe YOU mean I'm zealous for God. I know Brian did not. He was saying just enough for people to say...well, he didn't actually call you a Pharisee. He did.

4. Praying for me: Again, you may mean that you will actually pray for me...just as a Christian would pray for another Christian. Not because there is something wrong with them, but because they love them...as a brother/sister. Brian did not. It was just a jab...as seen by his mean statements and then saying basically: don't bother replying I'm not gonna read it.


Let it be known, I don't have a problem with you, DRT. Brian just randomly up and had a problem with me because I said lying to those you love is horrible. It still is.

FYI - My wife was wondering what I was typing about, so I read my comments to here. She agreed, and said that, as a woman, when that anima is talking to you, that is what you hear. You know that you are right.

So she actually agreed with what I wrote, and understands you Heather.

Heather, I hope that I can help be a translater here for a minute.

I am not checking the facts, but will only base this on what you said.

Brian - you have a lot to learn (sorry for making that blunt)

Commentary - I am 50 years old and the response I typically think when people say that is "OK, so tell me what it is that I have to learn! If I have not learned it then it is incredibly valuable to me that you know this even though I have not been able to tell it. If you are wrong, then no problem for me, I take a chance that you can help me."

You see, it is good to learn what you do not know.

Brian - Zeal contained

Commentary - The more traditional phrasing of this is "discretion is the better part of valor". I feel he made a good effort to refrain from saying the obvious yet make the point.

Brian - pharistical attitude

Commentary - in reality he did not say that you are a pharisee, and even more important than that he defined exactly what he meant by that comment and did not leave it to be some baseless accusation. He actually had a compliment embedded in there, that you are zealous for god. Heather, we appreciate that. Take that as a compliment. Brian and others are recommending temperance.

Brian - I will pray for you to grow.

Commentary - yes, I can totally see this as a dig. Yes, it can be. This is a very very difficult judgment call on my part, but I think brian is signaling his position , which needs to be said, but is also honestly praying. I really think this.

Summary - Heather, I agree, many or even most times people say "I will pray for you" I too think that they really won't. And many times they will pray, but it will be some contorted thing where they pray that you will see the light. I really don't think that is what brian is saying.

I wish I could spend a few hours with you heather, so you could get to know me and get to know the people that trust me. Frankly, my wife is much like you in the following way (this is a prognostication). When she decides that this is a debate/fight/competition, the focus goes on winning instead of understanding. Putting it another way, winning is defined by proving the other position to be inferior, instead of jointly figuring out what the best position is. Please note, the best position is frequently one that neither of you had. It is one that you two were able to come up with by collaborating with each other. This is the win-win scenario that we all should be shooting for.

Heather, I AM praying for you.

@Brian C: Wow...calm down, son. I mean really? All those false accusations and you won't even let me defend myself?

Ok, DRT add to that "I seriously lack knowledge of grace" and "I bear false witness" and "I'm a hypocrite." Yeah...those are ALL personal insults.

Now, I'm going to show that I was actually right in what I said. I'm quoting Brian here: "what is clear from your dialogue with James and I is that you have a lot to learn." and "Heather evidently hasn’t figured out yet that such zeal needs to be contained." In the parlance of our times...basically he just said "Heather is stupid." I mean, let's not play dumb.

And, as for the Pharisee quote...he said it in the above comment (in which he said he didn't call me a Pharisee...): "You are indeed of a pharistical attitude thinking you know better than others" But even earlier he said this: "Heather evidently hasn’t figured out yet that such zeal needs to be contained or it will hurt other people and tarnish our witness. The pharisees too were zealous for God and Jesus had his strongest words for them."

...yes, Brian, you called me stupid and a Pharisee. I mean, that's fine. I have a pretty thick skin (obviously). But let's not pretend you have the moral high ground. Plus, "I'll pray for you to grow...etc." Really? Again, it's "go to hell" in Christianese. Well, my friend, I won't mind sharing a place in the new heavens and new earth with you at all. I just hope you have found out by that time that you aren't better than me, and don't freak out too much when I'm there.

I can't make this more clear, Brian. Nothing is going on in my life except I'm talking to someone who is rather rude and passive-aggressive and thinks he's better than me. I'd like you and DRT and James Rednour to know right now that I am a sinner, just like you all and God decided to save me. I don't know why, and I'm grateful every day, and I hope to share that with every non-Christian I come across. And I try, and a lot of the time I do. I am a perfectly NORMAL individual. No smarter, stronger, more faithful than the next guy, but you are making me insane by your pietistic nonsense and your "I'm going to pray for you." Let's be honest...no you won't. You're just as annoyed as I am.

Heather, if I was trying to insult you I would have done a much better job of it than saying that you were "new" in the faith or that you were "angry" which is clear from how you have represented yourself here. However, since you profess a strong hatred of lying I will point out that you are bearing false witness when you say that I said you are stupid or a pharisee. I never said anything of the kind so maybe before you apply your judgmental spirit to others you best check the log in your own eye. That was what I was getting at here for I saw in your posts just that judgmental spirit that Jesus warns us about. None of us walk perfectly before the Lord therefore all us are called to sympthasize with, have grace toward, others who are struggling with their faith. However your cocksure attitude doesn't grasp your own offenses. Now you have confirmed what I knew you to be all along- a hypocrite who doesn't understand that she is. You charge me with being arrogant however I have repeatedly dealt with you in grace and offered peace. You are indeed of a pharistical attitude thinking you know better than others when you seriously lack knowledge of the grace with which Jesus asks us to have toward others. You are indeed waging an ungodly war here as DRT rightly points out. DRT, James and I have all attempted to help you see what you are doing but you reject that and instead feel the need to argue with anyone who doesn't see things your way. You came on here spitting vinegar and when confronted directly with what you said offered nothing but an attempt to circumnavigate around how not only I but James and DRT understood you. I'm not sure what is happening in your life to make you so angry toward others but I do pray that this experience will at least show you your own hypocrisy and maybe to deal in a right spirit with others in a public forum. There will be no need for you to respond to this in your typical fashhion because I am done here and won't read your response. I do pray that you will grow in the knowledge of his grace. Grace and peace to you.

@DRT: James Rednour was not insulting me. He was entirely mannerly. Brian C CLEARLY was. Let me recount all the things he said about me: I am new to the faith. I ruin my own testimony. I am stupid. I am a firebrand. I am a pharisee. I do not love. I am angry. Does that sound like personal insults to you?

Brian C had no interest in helping me. Only in mocking people and taking this arrogant "I'm a better Christian than you stance"...all the while...claiming...I thought I was a better Christian. Yeah, the hypocrisy was lovely...

I have nothing to win...so...what war? I love that you and Brian think you can judge other people's hearts. That's just great. Yet, I can't judge an action as right or wrong....so very interesting.

There is not a "Like" function here for comments but thank you, DRT.

LOL - well that settles it then. Grace and peace to you, my dear.

Heather, Brian C is not insulting you. James was not insulting you. They are, as apparently godly men, trying to help you yet you are not seeing that. I recommend that you stop trying to win this fight, and instead look at how you are waging war. There really is a problem there and I hope that you can solve it.

To the pastors out there who instill this type of divisive, war mongering, hostile, attitude (and there are lots of you), please stop, you are ruining people.

@Brian C: Since you've sunk to the level of personal insult, I have nothing left to say to you. As I learned in debate: Personal insults are the losing side's last resort.
Sad...and did you just tell me to go to hell in Christian-ese? Funny

@ Heather, what is clear from your dialogue with James and I is that you have a lot to learn. To close with a quote from Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much."

Grace and peace.

@James Rednour: You were saying they were the same. They aren't.

However, of COURSE we would both view someone who rejects Christ the same way. We are all Christians despite theological differences.

BUT, you can be assure...again, if you confess with your mouth; believe in your heart, you'll be saved. It's a promise. God keeps His promises.

I ignored questions that didn't pertain. I'm sorry if that makes me "difficult to debate with" but I hope if I asked you some silly question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, you'd just tell me, "that has nothing to do with the topic at hand."

@Brian C: Come now, your arrogance is clouding your argument. I've been in the faith all of my life...and it's a fair piece. God hasn't entrusted me with the truth, but He's revealed Himself in His word. You can read it as well James or myself. I do know that lying is wrong...especially to those who trust you.

Don't make assumptions and judgements about me (just as you urged me not to do on hypothetical doubting leaders). And don't assume my witness is damaged. Again, I'd caution you here. You don't know me and you don't know what my witness is. You don't know who I'm talking to about the Lord, and you need to cease this "holier-than-thou" image you've been waving about. If you read through my comments, I've never speculated on whether or not you were as good a Christian as me...I suggest you extend the same courtesy.

Good to hear, James. God bless.

Thanks for your encouraging words, Brian. As I stated, leaving the church completely does not seem to be a solution that will provide comfort for me. So much of my identity is tied up in it that abandoning the faith completely would leave a void that would be difficult to fill. As a rational, these questions will always be there for me, but I leave open the possibility that God can change my heart once again.

@ James - It wasn't that long ago that I seriously doubted my own faith. I felt God was silent and absent from what I was going through for what seemed a lengthy season of my life. For that reason I determined to walk away from the faith, even declared myself "done with God," thought I would return to the atheism of my younger days, but after investigating the options realized as Jesus disciples did - "where else can we go You have the gift of eternal life" (which is not just a future hope but a present reality). It was then I learned of the "dark night of the soul" and the deeper meaning God has in the darkness. An exhaustive study of the book of Job demonstrated the wrestling with faith and the soveriegnty of God so clearly and we see God's purpose established in Job's life in Chapter 42 verse 5. Spiritual confusion is certainly nothing foreign to the Scriptures as even King David, the man after God's own heart, wrestled with his faith (Psalm 13, 22). To some degree I think Paul wrestles with his faith in Romans 7, perhaps having experienced some uncertainity himself regarding his issue with the thorn. Even Jesus wrestled with his faith in the garden asking three times for the "cup" to be taken from him. So doubt is a human condition and anyone who hasn't truly wrestled with such doubt cannot appreciate what God is doing in a person's life through it. I do think it's telling that you haven't left your church or teaching as you wrestle. I do encourage you to keep an open-mind because I think there are answers to be found that can reconcile the difficulties you presently have with Scripture with the God who is there.

In closing my time on this thread I suspect that Heather is a young firebrand perhaps new, or relatively so, in the faith, who thinks she has it all figured out, that God has entrusted her with all truth. Heather evidently hasn't figured out yet that such zeal needs to be contained or it will hurt other people and tarnish our witness. The pharisees too were zealous for God and Jesus had his strongest words for them. To the rest of us however, one of the hermenutical threads that runs through the Bible is that we will struggle with our faith but there is a profound God-sized reason for that (James 1:2-4). Paul does warn us that "if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!" We see and understand as through a glass darkly and what we think we know at some point in time might not in fact be what truly is, at least not in all that it is (1 Cor 13:12) As I know you know there are essentials to the faith, as Heather points to Romans 10 repeatedly, but becaue of our limited understanding we're instructed to walk the more excellent way.

James, I believe God is not done with you yet, as he wasn't done with me. If you haven't investigated the dark night of the soul I would encourage you to do so. God bless you.

Grace and peace in the Lord. Shalom.

"Ok, now I’m thinking YOU don’t understand the positions. We don’t at all think you can “give the gift back.” In fact, that is actually a HUGE difference between the two theologies."

Who is WE? Practitioners or Reformed Theology? I clearly stated that the Arminian postition was that a believer could give back the gift of salvation or reject it at a later time. I did not state that was the Calvinist position. Why are you having such a hard time with this?

My point is that a Christian who eventually rejects Christ completely would be viewed the same by either the Arminian or the Calvinist. A would say he ultimately rejected Christ. C would say he never had a saving faith to begin with. Both would agree he is not saved. Who cares about the details? The point is that no one can truly be assured of their salvation.

Anyway, I've enjoyed this exchange with you, but you are a difficult person to debate with. You either feign ignorance to basic questions (like the last one I posed or several of Brian's questions) or you are so set in your PoV that you are unable to engage in meaningful discussion. You are clearly an intelligent woman so it cannot be mere ignorance. Good luck to you.

@James Rednour: No, I really don't like lies. And I don't think there is an excuse to lie to those who love you.

Ok, now I'm thinking YOU don't understand the positions. We don't at all think you can "give the gift back." In fact, that is actually a HUGE difference between the two theologies.

I don't know. They either never did, or they do and they will eventually return to a place of peace. My faith is a gift, so...it's not like I do anything to make it strong. So, I have trouble understanding that last question.

"I never said it’s the norm, I said it has happened. I don’t care what the odds are. One just has to do the right thing."


I actually agree with you that one should always strive to do what is right. My position is simply that I sympathize with these men. You do not. That is where the difference lies.


"You asked for the difference…I understand what both of the positions are. No clarification was necessary."


I know you know the difference between the two doctrinal points. MY point is that the difference between the two is negligible or non-existent. They are simply two ways of viewing the same dilemma. No one has true eternal security. You stated yourself that only God knows the status of a sinner. An Arminian would state that a person can give the gift back or fail to live a life of sanctification that results in salvation. A Calvinist would say that the Christian who rejects God was never saved to begin with even though he THOUGHT he was. Neither position affirms anyone's salvation with absolute certainty.


"I can’t know anything except that if I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in my heart that God raised him from the dead, then I will be saved. I trust God. Period. He won’t let me go. I could go into a ten year chunk of doubting and unbelief, and He’d pull me out. I trust that."

Don't you think most of these pastors believed that as well? What makes your faith stronger than theirs?

@James Rednour: That's not...what a prophet even is...so nope. Still not that. I am however, a person who really likes truth. In this, I'm no different from any other Christian. I don't get bogged down much by emotion because that's just not my personality. PLUS, since the heart is deceitful, I guess it's not great to "listen to your heart" (whilst leaving your brain totally behind) as our culture would like us to do. I do need to work on and pray about being more GENTLE or TACTFUL with others, but I don't need to compromise truth in order to do this.

I never said it's the norm, I said it has happened. I don't care what the odds are. One just has to do the right thing.

You asked for the difference...I understand what both of the positions are. No clarification was necessary.

Your hypothetical pastor: You asked if he commits his life and beliefs to God and then later in life loses that belief, is he saved? The answer is, only God knows. If he's saved then it is a temporary time of spiritual depression or doubt that he is going through. It's impossible for us to tell. However, if he no longer believes in God and the gospel, he has to stop preaching.

A Calvinist can't say whether or not you are saved. Only God can. I can't know anything except that if I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in my heart that God raised him from the dead, then I will be saved. I trust God. Period. He won't let me go. I could go into a ten year chunk of doubting and unbelief, and He'd pull me out. I trust that.

@James Rednour: Ah, then you weren’t like me. I’m not a prophet. I have sympathy for people with struggles. Not with people who completely reject the faith and then lie about it.


No, you are a prophetess whether you recognize it or not. Prophets can sympathize with the plights of others, but they stand on the truth above all else and do not allow emotion to override the need to state the truth. You have admitted that in this very thread. One can be a belligerent prophet, but it is not a prerequisite for being a prophet.


'No, they would be more effective leaders if they showed humility by saying they needed help and stepping down. This has happened AND the pastor or leader has returned a stronger and more assured person than he was before. What WILL stain their ability to lead is lying to their congregation.'


There may be cases like this, but it's far more likely that no other church will rehire them and that their present church will view them warily if they state "I need to step down for a while and affirm that I believe Christianity is true. Can you hold my spot for me?" You're being naive if you think that this is the norm.


'Well, it’s different because it’s not anything YOU’VE done. It’s actually called “Perseverance of the saints.” It’s not conditioned on anything you do. That’s how it is different. How can anyone be assured? You can trust God’s promises, one of which is: “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”'

The Calvinist position is "Perseverance of the Saints" or Eternal Security. The Arminian position is "Conditional Preservation" (i.e. you can give back or lose your salvation). There is plenty of scriptural support for both positions. Regardless, if a person makes a statement of faith that they believe in Christ and commit their lives to him as virtually all pastors do (I suppose there are a handful who do not which seems crazy to me, but I digress) and then loses that belief at a later point in life, are they saved according to your definition? How could you ever know if you are really saved if a Calvinist could say that you were never really saved even though you were convinced you were at the time? I assure you that almost all these pastors believed they were saved and made a legitimate decision for Christ at some point. Were all of them delusional at the time? How do you know that YOU will never reject the faith? How do YOU know that YOUR decision was a legitimate one?

@Brian C: He doesn't. But he also doesn't tell us to use a flushing toilet when we go to the bathroom. I don't follow.

And yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with your position on confrontation. I see someone who is in leadership who leads astray their own congregation and lies to people who trust them on a daily basis. I find that action pretty repulsive. If you look back at what I said, I never said, I find liars pretty repulsive. I find LYING pretty repulsive. And no. I have no sympathy with a pastor who no longer believes, but who continues preaching to people because he invested money in it. That's dreadful. He needs to find another job.

SO...I see someone doing something wrong and I say, "this is wrong." You saw me doing something wrong (which...ironically was me telling someone they were wrong) and you say, "this is wrong." I'm sorry...what's the difference now?

And no honey, it's not my "anger" as you so high and mightily put it. It's the fact that I see a truth and no one around me is seeing it, and I'm like "but...this is true" and people start talking about their feelings and I just keep saying, "yeah, but...this is true."

LOL - Heather, the question was - "please tell us where Jesus instructs his followers to “find liars pretty repulsive” and rebuke them without “sympathy” in a public forum?" You have certainly circumnavigated well around answering a simple question but as you can see the question has nothing to do with my position on confrontation or my exegesis of Matthew 5:43-44 or Luke 6:27. I'm just wondering what exegetical device you use to come up with your position to be so hateful to anyone based on what Jesus so clearly teach's? But maybe, as you responded to DRT, it's that you just allow your anger to get the part of your judgement? No worries there is grace.

@Brian C: Uhm, I wasn't aware there was a question. Just poor exegesis. But here is a question for you...IF that is what Jesus meant, why do you point out when I'm wrong?

@DRT: Haha...well, I've many times admitted that when there is something that is true in front of me, I tend to just sit there pointing at the truth and then after a loooong time realize that maybe I'm hurting someone's feelings. I don't set out to do it, but I just get a little concerned when people can't see what seems to be quite obvious.

@ Heather - "I don’t follow." Exactly. Grace and peace to you.

Coming from the Reformed tradition no, I can’t. Once God calls someone, they are called. They can struggle and question and doubt (like any human being), but God won’t let them go. Those who say they “no longer believe” either never believed in the first place or they still believe but are in a dark place. If a pastor finds himself in such a dark place, he needs to take a leave of absence. I believe most churches have a policy for such an occasion.

It is unconscionable to preach a gospel you no longer believe and a God you don’t believe in. It’s a matter of trust between a leader and his church family. Any relationship based on lies will fail.

I’m not sure what line you’re asking for. If you aren’t a believer, you can’t preach. That’s the line.

OK, Heather, but even you have to give me that someone may not believe in god today, and believe tomorrow. Where is the line?

@DRT: Question, yes, I would hope so. Out right no longer believe yet lie to their congregation, no. And if so, I find that ACTION despicable.

You are getting away into the theoretical actually. I'm actually talking about major tenets of orthodox Christianity. Like, the deity of Christ for example. Now, I also think that if you were a pastor of say...a Lutheran Church (Missouri synod) and believed in open communion, I think you should consider moving to a different synod such as the ECLA which I believe allows for open communion. If it's just small theological differences, then I think it's fine for you to switch denominations. If you know longer believe in God and the bible as His revelation, you need to stop teaching in the church. Period.

I'm talking about what we would call a church community or church family. There is an issue of trust involved. You would agree that it would be immoral to tell your wife you love her, and then step out on her. If a pastor no longer believes in God, yet still preaches God...there is going to be BIG problem, and I find it pretty wretched.

I don't have a lot to say to your last comment because I don't see how it pertains.

As another option, should we be on a hunt for those who secretly disagree with the policy of the pastors. I should hope not!

Let me lay my cards on the table here. I don't want to provoke unwarranted suspicion even though I would be interested in the answer without any explanation.

Heather, I believe that most pastors, teachers and other folks in influential positions within churches have thoughts and ideas that are in conflict with the established position of their sect.

Is the standard that the person in a teaching position has to agree 1000% with the established position of the sect or can there be some latitude, especially if they are teaching something consistent with the rulers?

Most people will never agree with all the stuff that the leaders talk about. If they did then they would likely be brain dead.

Where is the line? If they are teaching the party line, what is wrong with that?

Heather, I believe, just as an hypothesis, that you have a much more concrete and unambiguous view that many people who I know. I actually think that it is probably more likely that most clergy question their beliefs than those who do not.

Do you think they should step down when questioning?

@DRT: Well, actually Brian C and I are both speaking of theoretical pastors (who lie to their congregations on a weekly basis!) brought up by another commenter. Brian is saying that I shouldn't say what they are doing is wrong because...I guess because Jesus wants us to love people. I'm not sure how covering up wrongdoing is loving, but there you have it...

A slump would be a pastor who is struggling with what he believes and goes to his accountability partner, or the session, or close friends and seeks help and counsel. That is completely understandable. What I don't understand is a preacher who completely doesn't believe in God, but decides, "ehhh...I spent good money on this. I'm going to keep on doing this despite being a total fraud."

So, your analogy would more accurately say: Should a teacher give up teaching if they have decided they no longer want to equip children for the future. And then my answer is, yes. Yes they should.

Heather, let's assume that Brian is in a bit of a slump. Should all teachers step down when they are in a slump?

Brian, I am interested in your view too.

@Brian C: Of course I am. Why else would I hate lies and find liars pretty repulsive?

Heather, you are one tough cookie! You would get along with my wife.

Heather, are you going to answer the questions put to you or keep swimming around with red herring?

@Brian C: Puh-leaz! SURELY you don't think "love your enemies" means never confront someone when they are wrong.
Because A. That is logically inconsistent since you confronted me when you thought I was wrong and...
B. It doesn't mean that.

Heather, thank you, but I'm quite clear about what the scriptures tell us about GOD's position on lying. That's not the question I asked you however. Let me repeat it - please tell us where Jesus instructs his followers to “find liars pretty repulsive.” I do remember Jesus saying something about loving others including those we disagree with (as I recall he called them "enemies.") Could it be in your zeal you have set yourself up in the place of God as judge, jury and executioner? Do you not think God is unable to deal with those who like Mr. Rednour don't necessarily believe the Bible is inerrant, and maybe don't even believe in Him presently? Do you think God needs you to fight his cause for him? I could be wrong but I think God has it all well under control without your help or mine. But rather the Lord calls us to be merciful as he is merciful because our stuff stinks as bad as anyone else's. Shalom.

@Brian C: The bible is rather clear on false teachers in the church. And there are a lot of reminders that those in leadership have a bigger responsibility because they lead others.
Also, a lying tongue is something God hates. Yes, hates.
Also, a quick search of the book of Proverbs turns up TONS of verses about lying and how repulsive it is.
Ezekiel 13:8, "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord GOD."
1 John 1:6, "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:"

....I've got more...do you want more? Mr. Rednour has admitted (on a separate forum) that he continues in some capacity of leadership in a church even though he is no longer a believer. I think that's a pretty big deal, and if he admitted it to someone personally as a struggle he fought against then yes, I'd be out of line. This is something he is public with, and I can say that yes, it's pretty repulsive. I know in our society we've stopped looking at lies as a big deal, but I think it's something we need to take a good long look at considering all the things the scriptures actually say about lying.

Heather, please tell us where Jesus instructs his followers to "find liars pretty repulsive" and rebuke them without "sympathy" in a public forum. Thanks.

@ Heather - with a comment like that please tell us you're not a Christ follower.

Hi James

I have gone through a similar transformation from my beliefs of inerrancy but I ended up leaving the church and have been happier and more at piece for it.

From reading your comments it seems to me that your belief leaves you feeling alienated, I apologise if I misread your situation, I found the below website a huge source of hope and joy to see that I was not alone in my critical thinking.

This site is for clergy who have read the bible and researched the contradictions, the inconsistencies between what we find when we study the earth and what is written clearly in the bible, and some (not all) of the immoral teachings within it and have begun to question why this is the best book God could have written.

I hope it helps you!!
http://clergyproject.org/


Peter

@James: Well, I don't sympathize. They should stop acting and leading others astray with their fraudulence. As should you, and I believe I (and others) have said that to you before. I find it pretty wretched.

Hi Peter. Thank you for your words. I wouldn't say I feel alienated. I still enjoy church and the fellowship with family and friends that are there. I'm not sure my life would be better off by leaving the church altogether. It has been an integral part of my life for so long that abandoning it altogether would probably leave a huge void in my life that would be difficult to fill. Regardless, I am content with my position in life and think I have reached a balance with which I can go forward in life. It has taken many years (decades, actually) to reach a point where I can comfortably say that the Bible is probably largely untrue but is still as good a guide for moral living as there is. I'm satisfied with leaving it at that

And yes, I am familiar with the site. I suspect there are many pastors and other Christians who are in the same position as you were and as I am that are afraid to admit it. Most pastors have invested so much time, money and reputation in their profession that turning their back on their faith - regardless of how much they struggle with it - is not a feasible option for them. I certainly sympathize with their plights.

I'm no scholar or theologian, but I can understand why inerrancy means freedom and not "slavery."

For me personally, if I didn't believe that God's Word (original manuscripts if we're being technical) about Himself is without error, I would be constantly trying to make Christianity work with my *own* understanding about God. There would be so much dissonance and striving in my thinking because *I* would be the one to determine who God actually is. All the burden of discerning God's character, the work of Christ, and whatever is true would fall upon me and my own intellect. That's frightening to me because I know my own mind is fallen (That's what the Bible teaches me anyway, but if it's full of errors than maybe my mind IS perfect!) Men Without Chests, anyone?

Note James Rednour's words:

"[preaching] is my gift to those who have faith that it is true.I live my life as best as I can as a a follower of Christ, but I have a God-given intellect that can see when something is not accurate and should not be taken as such."

Hmmm....if you believe that your interpretation of scripture *without* all its errors is the one we need than maybe you should re-write the Bible without all the mistakes in it so we can have a more accurate rendition of God's Word. (no sarcasm here, I hope you see my point). Didn't Thomas Jefferson kind of do that already? That's sort of what this line of thinking seems to lead to?

This quote from Packer is probably the best thing I've read all week (other than Scripture). I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you, Kevin. It made my day.

A final comment: most of the arguments for inerrancy in this thread are nothing more than an appeal to authority (e.g. Tim Keller, J.J. Packer). That might be a good argument for those firmly in the inerrancy camp, but it does nothing to win over any doubters.

One other thing: if you handed a Bible to a non-believer and said "Read this" and didn't have a Tim Keller on hand to give his opinions on which parts of the Bible should be taken literally and which parts should not, would a non-believer really come to the conclusion that the Bible is inerrant? How could he? I listed many things that are obvious discrepancies in both the OT and the NT that a discerning reader would immediately note are errors or contradictions. Is it possible that those who want the Bible to be inerrant are trying to shoehorn explanations that don't make sense into the Bible so that they can continue to hold to the idea of Biblical inerrancy?

BTW, I completely disagree with the title of this post. Inerrancy doesn't mean freedom; it means confusion and self-doubt. If one is constantly trying to defend the idea of inerrancy (an indefensible position, IMO), one can become agonized over the logical knots that must be untangled to maintain that position against the educated arguments that can be made against it. IMO, it's better to acknowledge that the Bible speaks to certain truths about man and God (man's sinfulness, God's gracious offer of redemption, and freedom in Christ) than to try to argue about minutia like "Adam and Eve were real people. Paul thought they were and that's good enough for me."

Thanks David. So can you tell me which passages of the Bible are poetic and which are not? In other words, why shouldn't I believe that the entire creation story (including Adam and Eve) is poetic and not literal as well? It seems that those who adhere to Biblical inerrancy are totally comfortable with picking and choosing which passages they want to believe are literal and which ones they want to believe are metaphorical. So if that's the case, what is the point of a Biblically inerrant point of view?

@James

I would interpret the Joshua statement just as you suggest. I would add, first, that we believe the Bible is inerrant, not the Church, not Luther or Calvin. I would also say that science can be helpful in clarifying the proper interpretation of passages, and this is a fine example of that.

As to the firmament - let me quote some of the comments Tim Keller makes in "The Reason for God", when he's discussing Genesis 1.

"Christians who accept the Bible's authority agree that the primary goal of Biblical interpretation is to discover the author's original meaning *as he sought to be understood by his audience*. This has always meant interpreting a text according to its literary genre."

"I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a 'song' about the wonder and meaning of God's creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it actually happens."

In other words, you shouldn't read Genesis 1 as a literal scientific history. If you want to say "but many Christians did before modern science" - I'm fine with that. Science can clarify the meaning of a passage, the meaning that was intended all along.

"Do you believe in a firmament in the sky?"

I've asked this one many times (as have others on TGC who do not adhere to a hard inerrant view of the Bible) and no one ever touches it. Why? Because there is no other way to interpret the text except that God created a giant dome in the sky to separate the water on the earth from the water in the heavens. No one believes that anymore but no proponent of hard inerrancy will acknowledge that fact because it would be an admission that the Bible contains at least one error. Once you have admitted that, the inerrancy argument is lost.

"That’s just one example. If you had some other text in mind, I’d love to hear it."

I gave several examples and you chose the easiest one to defend. How about any of the others? Do you believe in a firmament in the sky?

As for the sun orbiting the earth, how about Joshua 10:12-13:

'On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. ”

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.'

You might say this is just a statement based on frame of reference, but even Luther and Calvin rejected the heliocentric model of the solar system based on this passage and called the idea heresy. It's easy for us to not take this passage at face value today, but before the 16th century it was heresy to suggest otherwise. The Bible is not a reliable science or history textbook regardless of how much people want it to be.

@James We'd say that every proposed error results from some sort of misreading in the text. For example - you apparently think the Bible teaches that the sun orbits the earth. I'm curious what Biblical text you think teaches that. The only thing that comes to my mind are verses that mention the sun rising and setting - but we speak the same way today, because that's how it appears to us. It doesn't mean we have to believe, nor does it mean the Bible requires us to believe, that the Sun orbits the Earth.

That's just one example. If you had some other text in mind, I'd love to hear it.

Packer is correct. Paul in Romans 1:25 uses the word "metallass?" to describe how the unfaithful not only reject truth but more importantly have been changed into untruth. That is they have changed the perspectives from which they approach truth from. Our thinking defines who we are. Our worldview tends "natutally" to be anthropocentric rather than theocentric and many approach God's Word that way, making arguments that are anything but Biblical. They use the Bible to say most anything they want it to say and easily justify their position because their worldview tells them they are correct. If inerrancy is anything it is approaching scripture from a theocentric perspective. That way when the "serpent" queries "did God really say" we can respond, "yes, God really said." But we also then must understand and allow it to shape our thinking why God really did say what he said. The problem we have today in our Postmodern culture is to many think they can define truth from an anthropocentric lens. And when we do we're trapped in the wrong world...view. Through the anthropocentric lens we can have a knowledge of Christ but we cannot have the mind of Christ which is integral to knowing the Truth.

@faithworks:

"Well, if you (anyone) believes the Bible has mistakes, then you are the one who determines what truth is. Self is then elevated to God."

Do you believe that there is a giant firmament in the sky holding back the waters? That is an assertion in Genesis 1. If you do not believe that then you are acknowledging the Bible contains at least one mistake and is therefore not inerrant and are elevating yourself to Godlike status by your own words. Isn't it better to say that the Bible was inspired by God but penned by fallible men and that we should reassess some of these things in light of human knowledge attained over the centuries? Or is your faith so weak that it will fall apart if every single letter of the Bible cannot be taken literally?

"Do they believe that the earth orbits the sun?"

Of course I meant, do they believe that the sun orbits the earth?

DRT,
Rereading the quotes I posted, I can see how the first one may have been misunderstood. The chapter they are from is not in fact supporting the young earth position at all. The point there is that science and the Bible are harmonious, compatible, and yes, as you say, both revelatory works of God. I agree that they both need interpreting, especially Genesis. I’m not suggesting we close our eyes to the evidence of the universe. I don’t believe the earth is 6,000 years old and I don’t believe the Bible says it is either. Hope this helps you understand how I meant those quotes.

I don’t think intellectual Christians have anything to fear. They’re not mutually exclusive. If science makes a claim that contradicts the Bible, let’s at least admit that we are groping for answers without all the data points to make an easy, conclusive decision. If Christians make a claim from the Bible that contradicts science, let’s at least admit that maybe they are interpreting it wrongly. That’s where the second quote I posted comes in. Sometimes I think that some of the largest battles between scientists and Christians are over misinterpretations and misjudgments.

I can't believe people still believe the Bible in inerrant (i.e. without error). It's full of errors and contradictions. Do inerrant proponents believe that there is a giant dome holding back the water in they sky? Do they believe that the earth orbits the sun? Do they believe that everyone on spoke the same language a mere 4000 years ago? I'm not even going to go into the age of the earth and universe or human origins as proponents of inerrancy refuse to accept established scientific principles.

And it's not just the OT. How many people went to Jesus tomb, because all the Gospels disagree. What were Jesus' last words on the cross? Why do the genealogies in Luke and Matthew contradict each other?

To be a proponent of Biblical inerrancy, one must deny a lot of common sense and evidence to the contrary that has emerged over the millennia since the scriptures were put to papyrus. I;m not into self-delusion, so as a Christian, I have made peace with the fact that the Bible is not an infallible document. How can it be? It was penned by fallible men.

Infallibility is not imprisoned by one doctrinal perspective. It can mean relying upon the Spirit to present redemptive truth through the Scriptures. If the inerrancy must be revealed through our own interpretation, reading ability, mental capacity, and accumulated influences, then they also must be pristine.

I believe the Bible to be the sole and final revelation of God and His redemptive plan toward man. That does not rise or fall on whether I can successfully navigate a question between 10,000 troops or 8,000 troops or other seemingly minor discrepencies. And when an imperfect man preaches his imperfect interpretation to an imperfect congregation, do we focus on nano-doctrines or can the Spirit reveal the Christ to whoever he desires?

Spurgeon, of course, says it perfectly:

If I did not believe in the infallibility of the Book, I would rather be without it. If I am to judge the Book, it is no judge of me. If I am to sift it, like the heap on the threshing-floor, and lay this aside and only accept that, according to my own judgment, then I have no guidance whatever, unless I have conceit enough to trust to my own heart.

Inerrancy may be true, however the obsession, focus, and doctrinal requirement is moot. Most missionaries have never relied upon that doctrine for their witness. There are no original documents, so not only must we assume our copies are overwhelmingly accurate, but we must assume they are inerrant?

“then you are the one who determines what truth is. Self is then elevated to God.”

That describes interpretation, as well as translation from Hebrew and Greek. If our interpretation and/or our translation is not also considered inerrant, than the supposition of original text inerrancy is, as I have said, moot. Is it not enough to believe that the Scriptures are used of the Holy Spirit primarily to present Christ and His offer of redemption by faith alone? In the end, there is an undeniable element of faith necessary for all of it.

Well, if you (anyone) believes the Bible has mistakes, then you are the one who determines what truth is. Self is then elevated to God.

Freedom? No, inerrancy is a law strongly advocated by today's Pharisaical conservatives. The law is a yoke of slavery.

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

@Brian C.
"Actually, your personal opinions of the Bible are indeed critical to the original point about irrenacy and the Packer comment but alas you have irrevocably closed your mind to anything but your view of scripture. But I wonder how you teach something you don’t believe? Isn’t that somewhat hypocritical? I mean no offense, I’m just asking the question."

Hi Brian, regarding the word "irrevocable", I am stating that it seems that way to me now. I have not closed my mind, but I seriously doubt it will change going forward.

And yes, I often do feel a tinge of hypocrisy when teaching. I try to avoid getting into discussions about Adam and Eve or the Flood, but even if those topics come up, I can still find truths in those stories that I can teach about. I still find satisfaction in teaching and believe it or not, I still regard myself as a careful teacher of Scripture. When I am teaching, I treat the Bible as God's Holy word and I do my best to relate its meaning to my students. I am suffering under some sort of cognitive dissonance, I suppose, but people need to belong to something greater than themselves and the church is where I have always found that place of belonging. I guess I have the faith of a mustard seed (you know, small but alive and having greater potential), but Jesus said that was enough. Regardless, the faith that I do have has been fired in the furnaces of introspection and investigation. That is a faith that is worth something, IMO.

Thanks to all of you for this enlightening and satisfying exchange.

kyle, sorry for being blunt, but you are very mistaken.

We need to put Genesis side by side with the world and universe. Both are god's revalation and both need to be interpreted. The big mistake you are making is in thinking that Genesis does not need any more interpretation than the cosmos. That is a fatal error.

FWIW, I am largely in the same boat as James, but I believe in the truth that is at core in the texts, the metanarrative if you will. I believe the OT recounts, as I would recount my exploits to my children, Israel's ongoing relationship with god. I don't have any desire to impose some sort of inerrency on the text or to have the events be strictly factual. Heck, I spin a story or two about the events in my life and yet the core is true. Did George Washington chop down a cherry tree and then not lie about it? He did not. But the story is still true.

People need to get off their high horse and appreciate that the painting of the last supper may have more truth in it than would a photograph of the same event.

I told my kids with a straight face that Santa was coming. And you know what? He was coming.

The reformed church is deeply in bed with modernity and the dualisms of the world. The bible is not true or false. It is true! But it certainly is not inerrent. Feeding the people poop like that just keeps holy wars and hate in the world.

The most important parts of the bible are those where Jesus tells us what is important. We are to love god and others. And no, telling people they are sinners is not showing love. And hiding the fact that people are sinners is not showing love. It is not an either or situation. Every person and every situation is unique and special and loved.

I don't know how people miss it, but they do all the time. Jesus did not come and make new laws. Folks, the inerrency is inherently law based. He gave principles to live by.

And the most important point Inerrency means captivity to a new law, not the freedom that Jesus gave us. Please do not enslave the people anymore.

"For now we see in a mirror obscurely, but at that time face to face; now I know in part, but at that time I will fully know even as also I was fully known." - 1 Cor. 13:12

Should a technicality eclipse the major revelation in the Bible- God's eternal purpose and Christ's redemption?

Watchman Nee has some great quotes that are somewhat related:

“Genesis is God’s revelation, while geology is man’s invention. God knows the whole truth. As such, His revelation can never be wrong. Man only sees in part. As such, his conjectures are not accurate. When we place Genesis side by side with geology, we should follow Genesis and not geology, because it is God who stands behind Genesis.”

“If there are any contradictions with science, it is either a misinterpretation of the Scripture or a misjudgment of science.”

“But one must not overturn the ‘whats’ with theoretical ‘whys’ just because man’s finite mental research has come into conflict with God’s record.”

“The record here is ‘non-science’; it is not ‘anti-science.’”

"Perhaps, but I see no other possible alternative."

James, I'm sorry you feel that way because there is always an alternative if we become seekers instead of being satisified.
Actually, your personal opinions of the Bible are indeed critical to the original point about irrenacy and the Packer comment but alas you have irrevocably closed your mind to anything but your view of scripture. But I wonder how you teach something you don't believe? Isn't that somewhat hypocritical? I mean no offense, I'm just asking the question.

And James,

I just saw the resources you've referred me to. I appreciate you taking the time to answer, and I'll definitely look into these things. Thanks again, and many blessings.

@James

I'm sure people on your side of the fence could probably argue with people on my side of the fence for years and never come to a resolution, but I can't help but offer the other perspective on the OT issues you raise concerning the falsehood of Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre and the supposed irrelevance of Esther:

1. As for Tyre, the city was in fact destroyed. The modern day city is not the same as the ancient city. Alexander the Great built a new Tyre, but if you visit modern-day Tyre, the archaeological ruins of the old Tyre may still be seen today.

2. As for Esther, I just don't see how you can regard Esther as being irrelevant to salvation history, since the very existence of Israel is at stake in the book of Esther. If there's no Israel, then there's no Savior. Salvation comes from the Jews. The fact that God is not mentioned by name is a literary device to highlight the providence of God. While God is not mentioned by name, his favorable presence is seen in the protection of his people.

I know this really isn't going to turn the light bulb on for you, James. But I just couldn't resist. I'm young, arrogant, and I see what I want to see. But in my case, I think I'm seeing what I'm supposed to see (you know it, Luke 24:44ff).

Grace and peace.

"Do you really believe there was a talking snake. Really?"

DRT, actually the Hebrew is probably better translated as "Bright" or the "shiny one" which is undboubtedly why the woman in the account didn't respond in fear but held a conversation with the "snake." The Hebrew is the nachash or ha nachash which means to practice divination. Whether the account is literal or metaphorical the idea being expressed is that we are easily deceived. Interesting how Dawkins and the New Atheists have taken to calling themselves Brights.

@Brian C.

"By the way, isn’t it kind of closed minded and dogmatic to declare yourself “irrevocably” locked into any position?"

Perhaps, but I see no other possible alternative. As science and archaeology continue to affirm that the idea that the Bible should be considered inerrant is false, there doesn't seem to be any way to go backwards.

Anyway, my personal opinions on the veracity of the Bible is not really relevant to the original point about inerrancy. Can the Bible be treated as inerrant? The evidence to me indicates a resounding no.

David Shane says "I would point out all the many many statements the Bible makes about its own trustworthiness and inspiration."

I too think that the bible is trustworhty and inspired. But not the radical definition of inerrant. Show me where the bible says it is inerrent vs. the times where it is merely useful. The bible makes no claim to inerrency for itself.

@ James, well I understand but that's not exactly the metanarrative I am referring to. There is a thread that runs through all of Scripture from Genesis 1:28 to Revelation 7:9. When my students first discover this for themselves they all say "how come I was never taught this before?" Maybe check out those Scriptures and see if you discover something new. Christ is a central figure but even the work of Christ needs to be approached through the grand story the Bible is telling, as does the history of the "nation" of Israel. By the way, isn't it kind of closed minded and dogmatic to declare yourself "irrevocably" locked into any position?

David Shane, Bravo! You quote Keller and are part way to the Dark Side!!!! Just kidding.

OK, so Gen 2 is literal history. Do you really believe there was a talking snake. Really?

@Brad Jones

Hi Brad. Recent archaeological finds in the Middle East point to the most likely origin of the nation of Israel as a culture that arose from the vestiges of collapsed Canaanite cultures. How this happened is not clear, but if you are curious, a good starting point for this line of investigation is the work of Israel Finkelstein (e.g. The Bible Unearthed). There is no archaeological evidence for a mass migration of almost a million people in the Arabian wilderness as asserted in the Torah. This despite 1000 years of searching for it. The argument that a nomadic people would have left no trace of such a migration is not convincing. These people used clay pots, had metal adornments and many other things that primitive civilizations had. Something should have turned up by now if such a migration were historically accurate.

Another good point to describe how the nation of Israel could have possibly formed is the Nova episode entitled "The Bible's Buried Secrets." It's fascinating viewing even if you discount the arguments. I think it's available as streamed content on the Nova site. Watch it and then you'll at least understand why many question the historicity of much of the OT.

As I stated, I am not interested in convincing anyone of the wrongness of their beliefs. I know from personal experience how difficult some of these issues are to grapple with. After many years, I have finally reached a peaceful resolution to this debate. I pray for the same for all who have similar questions.

@Brian C.
"Have you ever considered that there is a metanarrative to Scripture?"

Of course, Brian. The meta-narrative that Christians believe is that the events in the OT point toward Jesus (i.e. God's curse of Adam, God's covenant with Abraham, Moses as a type of Christ, etc.). There are passages such as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah that make this argument compelling. Then again, most of the major OT prophecies are obscure enough to be subject to a multitude of interpretations. In fact, several are demonstrably false (e.g. the Fall of Tyre in Ezekiel 26). Given that the Torah stated that if a prophet ever prophesied just one false prophecy he was a false prophet, by God's own standard Ezekiel was a false prophet based on this one failed prophecy alone. Now most of these prophecies are not specific enough to be declared to be clearly false but there are several that are.

I believe the OT can be viewed in a backward-looking fashion to point to God's plan of salvation, but I don't think the argument is cut and dry. Most of the OT concerns the history of Israel. For example, there is nothing in the book of Esther that can be argued to point to Christ. In fact, God isn't ever even mentioned in the book. People generally see what they want to see, or as Sir Francis Bacon so eloquently stated "Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true." That sums up the human experience better than almost any sentence I can imagine.

@James Rednour:

Hey James,

I can understand where you're coming from, and I respect your intellectual honesty on the matter. Personally, I can't escape the fact that the Judeo-Christian tradition means absolutely nothing unless it's rooted in real history. And this brings me to a question I'd like to get your thoughts on:

If the historical events of Israel (up to the Babylonian exile)have no real historical ground, then *how* did they even come to be believed. Did some Israelite make the stories up? Did those stories just happen to catch on in such a way that they actually became part of the whole national identity of Israel? The whole Israelite identity is based on events that are claimed to be real. While surrounding Ancient Near Eastern neighbors lived in the same conceptual world, Israel does make some very interesting and historical claims about their God. No Israelite of the time treated the events as non-historical. And I have to wonder what in the world would give rise to such a unique religious history. How possible would it be for a modern-day nation to pull off what you claim Israel did, making up a social and religious history which forms the bedrock of a national identity? This would be about as possible as the church spreading throughout the Greco-Roman world without being rooted in the historical reality of Jesus Christ crucified and raised. I'd love to get your thoughts on these matters, for the sake of greater clarity and understanding.

Thanks James.

@ James - Thank you for the detailed answer and I empathize with your concerns. Another question if you don't mind. Have you ever considered that there is a metanarrative to Scripture? I ask because you draw a dichotomy between the OT and NT.

@Brian C.
"James, I’m just curious – what do you think the Bible is and what is it trying to communicate?"

Hi Brian. I believe the OT is a history of the nation of Israel and is largely mythological and was crafted to help forge a national identity. This was absolutely necessary because the Hebrew people lived in the shadows of huge, powerful empires on every side. The last 50 years of archaeology by respected Jewish researchers have demonstrated that everything up to the return of the Hebrew people from Babylonian captivity is of questionable veracity. There are no independent historical sources to confirm that there were ever any Jewish patriarchs, captivity and exodus from Egypt, conquest of Canaan, or that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were anything of the scope as described in 1 and 2 Samuel/Kings/Chronicles.

I think the NT is largely accurate although it is full of discrepancies as I listed. I believe that Jesus was a real historical figure and may even have been divine, although there is little evidence to support that position. I regard myself as a "Sermon on the Mount" Christian in that I try to live my life as Christ commanded and directed us. I hold out hope that there is a God and I live my life as if He exists because I believe the Christian life is the best possible way to live as a human being. I also believe that while Paul had many great insights into the Christian life that many of his teachings are not relevant in today's world (views on women, homosexuals, slavery, etc.) I do not put Paul's teachings on the same level as the teachings of Christ. I believe Paul thought he was teaching God's word, but he was a fallible man like any other and many of his prejudices show in his writings.

I realize that everyone will discount my views now, but I was raised in a Southern Baptist church and have attended evangelical churches my entire life. I was saved at six, baptized at ten, was a Royal Ambassador, always won the sword drill competitions as a child and youth, have been a deacon for a decade, chairman twice, have led a pastor search team and have taught Sunday School for over twenty years. I know the Bible back and forth and have come to the views I now have unwillingly but irrevocably. Most of the Bible doesn't hold up to detailed scrutiny and much of it is downright barbaric, except to those who are already predisposed to believe it is God's infallible word. No amount of debate or logical argument will convince someone who does not want to see what is self-evident. BTW, I'm not interested in de-converting anyone; I believe that many people derive comfort from the idea that the Bible is without error, which is why to this day that I still teach the Bible at church every Sunday. It is my gift to those who have faith that it is true.

I live my life as best as I can as a a follower of Christ, but I have a God-given intellect that can see when something is not accurate and should not be taken as such.

I can't say "AMEN" enough! Praise God for never changing. We can always trust Him to always be our ROCK! And His word will always be right.

@James

I would admit that sometimes the "fixes" or "reconciliations" to proposed errors in the Bible feel a little forced to me - they are always possible, but they don't always feel natural. But then I fall back on what the Bible says about itself, and that's why I believe them.

@James

The authority we need to appeal to first is the Bible. I would never expect to convince anyone who thinks the Bible is just-another-book that the Bible is without error. To another Christian, who already has a good deal of respect for the Bible, I would point out all the many many statements the Bible makes about its own trustworthiness and inspiration. And then, after they agree that there are good *scriptural* reasons for believing in inerrancy, then I would tackle all the "but what about this passage" questions.

As to determining the genre of Biblical passages - all I can say is that you'd employ the same methods you'd employ with any other book. For the vast majority of Biblical passages, the intended genre is perfectly clear. Genesis 1 is one of the rare cases it is not - some Christians read it poetically long before carbon dating. It has a stanza-like, lyrical structure, but it isn't set apart like a Psalm... I don't have any perfect rule for you to follow.

James, I'm just curious - what do you think the Bible is and what is it trying to communicate?