[...] Kevin DeYoung has a helpful list of Good Book to Read on the Good Book. [...]

Book-lists are such a blessing, i can;t wait to go look all these up on Amazon!

Josh Mann

Bibliocentric.com

An addendum...

On your view, you really don't have a leg to stand on with regard to asserting anything in the Bible is true. For example, if someone wants to deny the Trinity, he simply says that those parts of Scripture were influenced by such and such and therefore can be disregarded. The deity of Christ? Well, that is just a reformulation of previous God-man stories that existed in ANE literature prior to blah, blah, blah. Get the point? You say the Trinity or the deity of Christ is biblical, someone says no. Who's right? It's all just opinion. That's a much bigger problem than trying to explain why a biblical writer appears to have gotten a Math calculation wrong.

[...] for the poor.  He has also been preaching on the doctrine of Scripture and posted this list of helpful books on the [...]

Tyler,

With regard to the Math problem, if exact precision isn't the writers goal with regard to numbers, I don't see what the issue is. We round up or down all the time. Doesn't make me question the inerrancy of Scripture. "Scribal error" may seem like a convenient catch-all, but it's a reality...remember, the Bible is a human book! :) I expect copiests to make mistakes. We have textual criticism and variant readings/manuscripts that help when such questions come up. That is not a defeater for inerrancy.

You said:

"Allegory: theological truths based on historical “lies”? Is there any of the bible that could be understood as allegory?"

Sure, there is allegory in the Bible, but not when the text is a historical narrative. That's a different genre of literature all together. Would you read a history textbook on the Revolutionary War and determine that George Washington crossing the Delaware is really an allegorical statement about American courage? Of course not. Paul wasn't speaking allegorically in Romans 5, neither was Jesus in Mt. 19. Asserting otherwise is completely implausible.

You said:

"All depends on what you mean by error."

Not really. Is rounding a number up or down an error? Maybe you are asking more of the Bible that it was intended for? I think we're pretty clear on what an error is. Do you wish to assert that Jesus and Paul held your position on Scripture? Prove that from the text.

You said:

"Whether or not I believe there was a historical first person named Adam does not change the fact that Christ is God and was raised from the dead. You are basing your entire faith on the absolute inerrancy of an ancient book, inspired by God yes, but a human book as well, yes. Our faith is not based on the bible it is based on the risen Christ. Also it is a negotiable, go back and look at the history of biblical interpretation pre-19th century."

If Christ is the second Adam, there very well had to have been a first. A historical first person named Adam has a lot more theological implications than you seem to acknowledge, starting with original sin. If the initial events of human history are a myth, why isn't the incarnation? Because you say so? Our faith is based on the Bible, because that is where the story of redemption is revealed. You would have never heard of the risen Christ without it. The age of the Bible has no bearing on inerrancy, since God supernaturally preserves His Word. The history of Biblical interpretation has no bearing on whether inerrancy is true. I didn't say someone who denies inerrancy cannot be a Christian, I said it's a non-negotiable of the faith. If a brother denies inerrancy, he is embracing heresy and on dangerous ground. He sets himself up as the one who identifies every word that falls from the mouth of God, instead of the Scriptures. How do you respond to Mt. 4:4?

You said:

"You say you judge people by their fruits. Then judge people by their fruits. Not their ‘negotiable’, debatable, and complex theological issues. And the inerrancy of the bible is a complex and debated theological issue."

It is not fruit only. I know cultists who are very nice, charitable, and gracious. Should I give their theology a pass? Inerrancy is not as complex as some make it out to be, it's just that some people are uncomfortable with it. Why? Because they don't particulary want God to be who He has revealed Himself to be if the Bible is without error.

You said:

"Isn’t that the point? The bible is a difficult book to deal with. It is not a simple book that people can read and ‘take at face value’. Either way, inerrancy or otherwise, you have problems, questions, and concerns. One way of dealing with them is coming from the presupposition of: the Bible must be error free, verbal plenary inerrancy. Then you fit the data and evidence of archaeology, ANE studies, and modern biblical scholarship to fit that presupposition. And you take the problems witnessed within the text and either force the hand, or say, “Scribal error.”

Regardless of the difficulty of interpretation, the answer is not presupposing it contains errors so that you can conveniently discard those texts that pose problems for you. As a Christian, I have no problem filtering my understanding of archaeology, ANE studies, etc. through what I consider to be a biblical understanding of the nature of God's word. If this is simply a matter of presuppositions, what do you think is more plausible? A perfect, holy God utilizing and preparing the personalities, writing styles, cultural contexts, etc. of frail men to speak His word just as He intended? Or a perfect, holy God breathing His word into men who corrupt it with their sins and ignorance? Why would God do this, since it is inconsistent with His character? Does the Bible have to have mistakes in order to be a "human" book? Jesus is human, he didn't make mistakes.

You said:

"When Christ preached the sermon on the mount did he say everything in the exact order and phrasing that the author wrote? Were there no extra words? Omitted words? Ums or Stutters? In my opinion that doesn’t matter. The author wrote what Jesus theological point was of his sermon on the mount. Did a lot of the material come directly from Jesus mouth. Maybe. Does it all have to. I don’t think so."

Is every account in Scripture simply to make theological points, but the events recorded are inconsequential? Perhaps the crucifixion never occurred, maybe it's in the Bible to make theological points? And the Resurrection? Maybe it never really happened, but the biblical writers were making theological points. If that's the case, you're right, the Sermon on the Mount didn't have to be preached by Jesus.

I'm not sure why you want to believe a theology skimmed off the top of a story or myth.

Tyler,

You are welcome to disengage, but you haven't answered my arguments for inerrancy (without error) or refuted my defeaters for your position. Therefore, I'm not sure why you find your position very compelling. However, I do again urge you to reconsider...

Best to you,

RD

We are just going to have to disagree, the subtly and nuance cannot be carried out in this forum. In conclusion, I am not against inerrancy, I am only against inerrancy as it has come to be defined in evangelical/reformed circles. The bible is inerrant and we should let the bible decide what it means to be inerrant, that includes "mistakes", contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and possibly a non-flesh and blood adam (I'm not saying these are necessarily always the case, as there is plenty of scripture that is "as it is", so to speak). Rather than defining inerrancy and then fitting the bible to the description.

Or perhaps God is unable to communicate as He would, being limited by the errors of men. If only God could find a medium of communication through which He could actually speak without error. Boy, wouldn't that be great! Then "God-breathed" would really mean something!

Right, the Lord who is revealed in Scripture. You know, the one you wouldn't have any knowledge of without divine, God-breathed revelation.

"I find it very odd that someone who claims to believe in a supernatural God and a supernatural (yet also historical) religion, has a problem with inerrancy. Is it likely that the writer of 1 Kings 7:23 is a dummy who can’t do basic math or is it simply a matter of scribal error? Inerrancy makes allowance for such, it’s the original manuscripts that are without error."

It is seen as basic math, now. But that's because we know how to calculate the circumference of a circle. And we know the value of pi. Why can it not just be that the author measured and found it to be 30 (even though technically it should be 31.415), and that his answer of 30 is close enough but not accurate. Sure it is possible that it is a scribal error but then that is another qualification. We are now assuming that the original manuscripts said 31.415 and the scribe decided to just round it to 30? Inerrantists can use that argument for any issue they cannot resolve: scribal error.

Allegory: theological truths based on historical "lies"? Is there any of the bible that could be understood as allegory?

"There is no doubt Jesus and Paul believed in and taught about a historical Adam and Scriptures without error."

All depends on what you mean by error.

"It is worth splitting Christian lines over this matter, this is a non-negotiable. So is a historical Adam. Otherwise, scrap the whole thing. You no longer have a supernatural God or a supernatural religion."

Whether or not I believe there was a historical first person named Adam does not change the fact that Christ is God and was raised from the dead. You are basing your entire faith on the absolute inerrancy of an ancient book, inspired by God yes, but a human book as well, yes. Our faith is not based on the bible it is based on the risen Christ. Also it is a negotiable, go back and look at the history of biblical interpretation pre-19th century.

"You don’t know if you will forever praise the Lord, work for his kingdom, etc. unless you keep believing."

True, I guess. But you're missing my point. You say you judge people by their fruits. Then judge people by their fruits. Not their 'negotiable', debatable, and complex theological issues. And the inerrancy of the bible is a complex and debated theological issue.

"You may think inerrancy poses a bunch of problems (pseudo-problems in my opinion), I say a Bible with errors causes a greater and more serious # of them."

Isn't that the point? The bible is a difficult book to deal with. It is not a simple book that people can read and 'take at face value'. Either way, inerrancy or otherwise, you have problems, questions, and concerns. One way of dealing with them is coming from the presupposition of: the Bible must be error free, verbal plenary inerrancy. Then you fit the data and evidence of archaeology, ANE studies, and modern biblical scholarship to fit that presupposition. And you take the problems witnessed within the text and either force the hand, or say, "Scribal error." Of course I am being slightly hyperbolic, since there are reasonable answers that inerrantists give and I admit that and support that, but it still comes from a theological presupposition, in my opinion. But for me I would rather take something like the 1 Kings example and say most likely the author just measured it, it came to 30, and it is a technical mathematical error, but that doesn't matter. Does it cause some theological and philosophical concerns, sure, but it doesn't, for me, call into question the story of the Bible, of God's redemption of his creation, and the reality of the risen Christ. It just means the author didn't have the mathematical knowledge we have today.

"How do we know Jesus said everything in the Sermon on the Mount? Maybe he didn’t."

When Christ preached the sermon on the mount did he say everything in the exact order and phrasing that the author wrote? Were there no extra words? Omitted words? Ums or Stutters? In my opinion that doesn't matter. The author wrote what Jesus theological point was of his sermon on the mount. Did a lot of the material come directly from Jesus mouth. Maybe. Does it all have to. I don't think so.


I am always reconsidering and I value what you have to say and have been really interested in all you've commented and written so far.

Tyler,

The Bible doesn't behave except as God's revelation of Himself, His character and purposes, to man. If man cannot live on bread alone, but by every word that falls from the mouth of God (Mt. 4:4), we are in big trouble if we cannot discern what exactly that Word is (and He certainly didn't leave it up to the sinner and his fallen moral intuitions to determine it). Enns won't believe something unless it's filtered through ANE or something in the Bible can be corroborated by current archaelogical evidence. I'm sorry, but I don't need to find something in the sand to believe an OT account of Jewish military conquest is accurate.

I find it very odd that someone who claims to believe in a supernatural God and a supernatural (yet also historical) religion, has a problem with inerrancy. Is it likely that the writer of 1 Kings 7:23 is a dummy who can't do basic math or is it simply a matter of scribal error? Inerrancy makes allowance for such, it's the original manuscripts that are without error.

The Bible must be error free if it is God's word, otherwise you will need to explain how God "breathes out" error, and how it is He cannot communicate that Word without it.

It is worth splitting Christian lines over this matter, this is a non-negotiable. So is a historical Adam. Otherwise, scrap the whole thing. You no longer have a supernatural God or a supernatural religion. You have one that tries to base theological truths upon historical lies. There is no doubt Jesus and Paul believed in and taught about a historical Adam and Scriptures without error.

You don't know if you will forever praise the Lord, work for his kingdom, etc. unless you keep believing. Denial of inerrancy is the beginning of faith-erosion. You may not be condemned, but you will certainly be embracing heresy and passing it on.

Under your position, how do we know that God inspired the term "God-breathed"? Maybe he didn't. Maybe it was part of Paul's mistaken fanciful thoughts about Scripture. How do we know Jesus said everything in the Sermon on the Mount? Maybe he didn't. Maybe the human witnesses that passed around an oral tradition about his teaching got some of it wrong. You may think inerrancy poses a bunch of problems (pseudo-problems in my opinion), I say a Bible with errors causes a greater and more serious # of them.

I encourage you to reconsider.

The gift of salvation is for all who call on the name of their lord and savior Jesus Christ.

Listen, I used to think exactly the same way you did, I could imagine myself writing all the same comments and getting just as aggravated as you are. And what changed it for me is simply seeing how the bible behaved. Looking at the bible, and trying hard to read it without heavy theological lenses. I used to be afraid that if I brought up an major questions, supported Karl Barth, recommended Enns' book I would be kicked out of the reformed circles (the gospel coalition, the resurgence, together for the gospel, etcetera). But then I realized that really doesn't matter; I just need to be honest with what the bible is saying. I began to look at verses like 1 kings 7:23, which gets basic math wrong, and say maybe it is just an error. Of course many of the "contradictions and errors" brought up have reasonable explanations, but they all seem to come from the presupposition that: the bible must be error free in order to be God's Word. I don't see how we can stake people's eternal lives on that requirement. There must be a thousand qualifications that one must give, a thousand "reasonable" explanations one must give in order to, as it has come to be known and defined in recent times, support inerrancy. In the end the way that you think, the inerrantist view that you hold, and the view that I hold, are certainly different, worthy of discussion and debate but not worth splitting Christian lines over. I will forever praise the Lord, work for his kingdom, and love his people and his word. And if my life ends and he pronounces me damned because I thought there were a couple errors in the bible, or because Adam wasn't a real flesh and blood person, then so be it. But I hope we as Christians can have different views of the Bible and still remain brothers and sisters in Christ. The bible is a complicated book, written by real people, and maybe the Lord intended it that way. Maybe the Lord had a bigger idea for the Bible when he inspired the phrase "God breathed" than simply without error. Maybe he meant that this bible attests to who you are humanity, who I am as God, and that it tells the story of God redeeming his people, Christ being the telos, and the coming (but already here) kingdom of God. Maybe the bible was written in a time where it doesn't answer the questions we want it to but accommodated to an ANE audience, had some errors we now know of but still attests faithfully to the God of Israel.

Did Paul think the world was flat? Paul's primary objective is theological not historical. Did Paul think there was a historical Adam? Probably. But pauls not perfect... Maybe he was wrong. But that's not even Paul's point. Paul's reason for pointing to Adam is to make a theological point about Jesus. And why can we trust the gospels if there are "errors" in another text? Because the gospels are different kinds of writing. How do you know for sure that everything in genesis 1 happened literally? Did everything in song of songs happen literally? The bible is inspired it does not lie about God but it is a thoroughly human book, maybe God calls us to work through the minor errors, the debatable historicity of Adam, and the sometimes (usually) difficulties and unclear-ness of the bible. Maybe the bible isn't so simple. Saying "if there's one error in the bible why should we trust the rest of it is a weak argument," there's different forms of literature, different inportances placed on what certain books/authors are saying and then there is faith.

The scriptures are without error... What exactly does that mean? How do you then understand chronicles next to 1 and 2 kings. There are undeniable differences in their accounts. How do you account for the way Paul uses the old testament, he constantly takes verses out of context and uses them in ways that seem to manipulate them. You can say that that is inspired by God but Paul seems to be clearly pointing to things in the old testament to make theological points that seemingly have nothing to do with what was actually "happening" in that verse. And what constitutes an error? When there are three different instructions on how to serve Passover? Is that an error? The differences in chronicles and kings?

And more importantly why is being "orthodox" according to... You, deyoung, Westminster confession... So important? Who decides orthodoxy? Was Barth orthodox maybe not according to you. But have you read any of his work? He is so reverent, respectful and full of awe for the lord. He devoted his whole life to serving God and the church and it seems like you'd be okay calling him an apostate unbeliever. The reason I was speechless is because you think you can label someone a heretical unbeliever because their not a reformed inerrantist. I would hate to be a Christian constantly wondering if I'm not living up to the standards set by the gospel coalition faith statement. We say we love the reformers but refuse to follower their lead. We take what they say as truth, and/or the other people who "follow" the reformers. But where has our theological and biblical inquisitiveness gone, where is our wonder and curiosity?

Lois, glad to hear that. Thank you, and God bless!

To R. Delaney:
I have followed with interest your dialogue with Tyler. I live among Christian intellectuals who accord high marks to Barth, Wright, Enns, McKnight, et. al. From my reading of them (some more than others), I do not find fidelity to Biblical truths, and, especially in Wright, and far more subtly, Biblical emphases. Your words have greatly encouraged me.

Steer clear of Scot McKnight too. Some of his commentaries are useful in certain areas, otherwise he's a universalist who is no friend of inerrancy. The Blue Parakeet was a waste of paper.

Tyler,

Is Barth orthodox?

Don't know why you're speechless. If you think the apostle Paul and Jesus himself were mistaken about there actually being a historical Adam, for example, what is there to be speechless about? Inerrancy arguments can certainly and necessarily be nuanced, but the concept is not that hard to grasp. The Scriptures are without error. If not, why believe them at all? Why believe they are accurate accounts of the life of Christ? The Bible is not subject to the moral intuitions of those who read it.

I would recommend "Inerrancy and Worldview" by Vern Poythress for your consideration.

Don't be sucked in by the apparent wisdom of what is falsely called "knowledge".

I don't intend to take it back unless Enns repents. It's my opinion, not an ecclesiastical pronouncement

Thank you, Tyler--I was not offended. It is, no doubt, better to talk about the conclusions we draw from a person's work without making final judgments, since only God can see the heart, but we can justly, I think,conclude that if one professes beliefs that are to us a denial of a Biblical faith, they are unbelievers.

Also I apologize for my tone if you took offense. It was not intention to be offensive in any way.

I'm not saying you can't make judgements regarding people you haven't spoken to. But calling someone an apostate unbeliever is a serious charge. That's something you can't take back.

Tyler, I am sorry to see the tone of your post. I think the dialogue has indeed been on topic, which is our "doctrine of Scripture," to quote the original blog where Kevin DeYoung summarizes his teaching that our view of scripture should be the same as our Lord's. You have made of inerrancy a dry, rigid, lifeless and restrictive theology. Not for me. It is the one true God who is inerrant, Who inspires his Word, which is written so that we may know Him. If we have a right doctrine of Scripture, we come in submission to the inspired, supernatural Word, which is living and powerful, able to discern our hearts, and bring about new birth, according to the Apostle Peter. In the writers you cite--most prominently in the work of N. T. Wright, it is a human book that we come to. In Wright's book, "After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters." Wright finally gets to the role of Scripture. (Just looked for my copy, but it has hidden itself.) He writes eloquently of being steeped in Scripture, of turning to it for a word of comfort or exhortation, and it all sounds good, until you reflect and realize that the same paragraph could have been written about any work I love--for instance, the poetry of George Herbert. His Word is not the supernatural word, and I find this consistent with his theology, as expressed in his other works. He may use the right language from time to time, but, read carefully, the humanistic outlook that informs his doctrine of Scripture is evident.
So it seems to me.

Paul was moved by the Holy Spirit to speak the truth, plain and simple. To make a theological point divorced from the historical events that support and establish the theology (and remember that Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events like Creation, the crucifixion, etc.) is ridiculous and lacks intellectual integrity. To point to the Gospels as "different kinds of writing" is no more than stating the obvious, which is irrelevant to inerrancy. Paul's epistles are just as much the Word of God as the gospels. Are the gospels the *real* word of God, while everything else is in some kind of sub-category? Please support that outlandish assertion with an argument. I also didn't assert that everything in Gen. 1 or Song of Solomon happened literally, I didn't assert a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible. Inerrancy doesn't dictate such.

It seems clear to me that you imbibed Enns heretical thesis. There is voluminous literature that discusses plausible explanations with regard to the issues you raised about Chronicles and Kings, etc. As for Paul's use of the OT, try reading Beale and Carson's book on the subject for starters.

The Scriptures decide orthodoxy, the Holy Spirit and the churches confirm it in the creeds and confessions. I don't care how reverent Barth was, that is no test of genuine faith and repentence. I'm sure Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, and Michael Servetus were reverent before their gods too. I didn't label Enns an apostate unbeliever because he's not a reformed inerrantist, I labeled him as such because that's what he is, and will yet show himself to be in the years to come (which I hope is not the case, but he appears to be on a terrible theological trajectory).

Following the reformers means searching the Scriptures and always reforming. Do you think Calvin, Luther, et al would embrace Barth and Enns? I think not.

I don't need to speak to Enns, to "know his heart". That's a very strange expectation for a public figure. I guess I couldn't make any judgment regarding anyone I haven't "spoken to". He's written books which he has released for public consumption. I judge a Christian's profession by his fruit, and the fruit Enns has produced is apostate unbelief, and he's dragging down others with him.

Basically all I have left to say is, I'm not totally against inerrancy when it is defined and applied specifically, but there are a lot of issues and questions that must be answered by inerrantists and this is the death of a thousand qualifications. It seems to me that the bible does not behave in a way that inerrantists would want. But the debate we are having is far beyond what this blog post can accomdate. And most importantly to me, and why I ultimately decided to comment again, is because calling another professing christian who you don't know, haven't spoken to, and dont know their heart, an apostate unbeliever is out of line, plain and simple. And it would seem like you are calling me one as well.

One of the best starter books on understanding the Bible might be Scot McKnight's, The Blue Parakeet.

Wow, that's a large list for one sermon series. Very helpful. Another good introduction worth mentioning is "Scripture" by Robert Saucy

Tyler, those selections are terrible. Are you throwing in books that deny the inerrancy of Scripture as a joke or was that serious? You should throw in Christian Smith's "Bible Made Impossible"

Kevin--no B.B. Warfield? Seems like a glaring ommission. Your list is good though!

Thanks for this list. Any specific books on the development and/or historicity of the OT?

I would love to talk with you more about this but don't want to continue on the comment thread. All I will say in response to your last comment is: I am somewhat speechless that you feel the need to label Enns an apostate unbeliever. Was Karl Barth an apostate unbeliever? NT Wright? Kent Sparks? It would seem like a lot of what many scholars today are saying is that the traditional understanding of inerrancy leaves one to die the death of a thousand qualifications. It seems a fair criticism at the least. If you want to talk more just let me know and I can give you my info.

Tyler,

Enns' isn't honest with the problems, concerns, etc. of evangelicals. All that book does is undermine confidence in the Word of God, while still trying to assert the Bible is "inspired". In my view, he's an apostate unbeliever.

The books you site deny inerrancy. Kevin is asserting inerrancy. This is not just about another "take" on the subject, it's an opposing take on it.

Not an agenda, simply adding my two cents and it would seem useless to further name the same 'type' of book that Kevin named, mainly because that is what the large majority of commenters are doing and because I can provide a slightly different take, different resources, that may help someone who has the kind of questions that these books specifically address. I too enjoy the books by Carson and packer. But inerrancy is not a one stop shop, it's not easily defined and tied down, and I fancy books like the one by Enns that is honest with the problems, concerns, and questions that evangelIcals have about the bible (old testament specifically). Also "reliable reviews" are not a substitute for reading them. Reliable to me might be a review by Wright whereas a reliable source to you maybe Carson, every review comes from a certain tradition or background or theological presupposition so "reliable review" as a benchmark is totally relative. Also I hardly feel like Enns, Wrights, or Websters book "undermine" what Kevin is trying to do; these are all Christian brothers who simply have a different take on certain issues, and while they may confront several questions differently, they all affirm the bible as inspired and holy.

Tyler,

I've read them and/or read reliable reviews of them. Why do you only site those books and not any that defend inerrancy? And on a post regarding a series of sermons defending inerrancy?

Rather odd, don't you think? It seems to me that if you're commending Kevin's list of books, you would mention titles that further support his thesis (but which may have been omitted). To drop in only to list books that deny Kevin's position smells like an agenda to me...

Delaney, are you saying those are terrible because you've read them or because you've heard they are terrible? Also I have Christian Smith's book and while I certainly don't agree with a fair amount of it he does bring up some worthy issues

I'll have to check some of these out. Some of my favorites are Peter Enns 'Inspiration and Incarnation', NT Wright's 'Scripture and the Authority of God', and John Webster's 'Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch'. I'm gonna try to start Kent Sparks new book as well. Hopefully after that I can check out the Bock book.

Thank you very much for this list. I have appreciated Mark Thompson's, A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture." (New Studies in Biblical Theology, IVP Academic, 2006) Thompson writes well and argues cogently for the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, in a context of post-modern assaults on the ability of language to mean.

Excellent list! One of my new favorites is K A Kitchens, On the Reliability of the Old Testament. He is both "the" OT authority and entertaining as a writer. I'll have to go back and listen to some of those podcasts.

I have been hugely blessed by that series, thank you for putting so much hard work into it!