- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous Post"The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment" Blog Tour (Day 8)
- Next Post »A La Carte (1/17)
Just a Fundamentalist
- 01/16/08
- 121
Yesterday Andrew Sullivan saw fit to link to my article on Biblical Inerrancy. Sullivan writes The Daily Dish for The Atlantic and is one of the most widely-read bloggers out there with at least 150,000 daily readers. You will not be surprised to hear that he did not like my article and linked to it with just one word of description, and an inflammatory one at that. “One fundamentalist makes the case,” he said. There’s no name and no description. Just that: one fundamentalist.
It seems that Sullivan prefers an article Michael Spencer wrote in response to mine. Michael was afforded the dignity of a name rather than a mere one-word description. “To my mind, this is Biblical fetishism. And absurd on its face, since there are far too many direct factual internal contradictions in the Bible to uphold this standard. I agree with Michael Spencer.” Speaking candidly, I don’t see that Spencer said anything with enough clarity to know whether a person could agree with him. It seems to be something like “God got what he wanted without demanding perfection of Himself.”
But no matter. This little incident somehow seemed significant to me as I thought about it last night. In a sense, this is really where the rubber meets the road for me as a blogger. The majority of people who read this blog tend to agree with me on issues of theology. But then Andrew Sullivan links and brings in thousands of readers who know nothing about me except that I’m apparently a fundamentalist (and who no doubt suppose all kinds of things about me based on that term). Of course fundamentalist is such a lazy term to use. Most people just assume that if I believe something more strongly than you do or if I believe something deemed more conservative than you do, I must be a fundamentalist. Because I believe that God did not communicate anything contrary to fact when He gave the Bible to men, I must be a fundamentalist.
Here is what I had to ask myself last night. Do I believe what I do enough to be unashamed when people mock me? Am I afraid to be called a fool and to be looked down on for believing what the Bible says is true? Am I ashamed to have all these people show up who probably think I’m heading out today to picket the funeral of a homosexual or a solider killed overseas? Or can I be unashamed, undignified even, as I hear or read what people say about me? Here is a comment that showed up on one site: “Respectful of Mr. Challie’s passion, his reasoning is not of the level to pass a freshman philosophy class.” I suppose that may be true. I’ve never studied freshman philosophy nor, at this point in life, am I likely to. But it still digs just a little bit.
This morning I turned to Psalm 19 and drank in the words of the Lord:
The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;
the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the Lord is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the Lord are true,
and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
They were good words to hear and they refreshed my soul. It’s not philosophical arguments that make a man wise. Rather, it is the testimony of the Lord. It is not the praise of men that makes a man joyful, but the precepts of the Lord. It is the law of the Lord that revives the soul and the commandments of the Lord that enlighten the eyes. The rules of the Lord are true and righteous and are to be desired more than anything else, no matter how sweet, no matter how fulfilling they may seem. So laugh and mock if you must, I guess.
The link from Sullivan’s blog did not result in the veritable flood of traffic one might expect from the link from a superstar blogger. Then again, I suppose the majority of his readers would have no real interest in biblical inerrancy. But if you’ve come to this site through his, I welcome you, and hope you’ll look around a little bit. If you’ve come thinking I’m Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps, well, maybe you’ll even find something that surprises you.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (121)
Thank you for this post. I am a regular reader of your blog who is frequently impressed by your candor. I will remember your reaction to derision and being misunderstood when I am attacked for my belief in the one true Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He suffered similar attacks, and much worse, when he walked among us, and still does today. It is an undeserved blessing to be able to carry that small taste of his suffering with my brothers in the faith. Thank you for your transparency.
I found the Biblical Inerrancy post superb. It was logical and sound. I wonder how many of those critical to the position read it fully or understand the core implications. Am I a fundamentalist? No. But I believe it is a fundamental and foundational doctrine. This is what we stand on. What else is there? The reason of man?
Psalm 19 does say it all.
Tim, actually your logical argument was logically valid and could pass a freshman philosophy course. The question is over whether the premises are true, but that is an entirely different matter. People who invoke the “freshman philosophy course” attack rarely, if ever, demonstrate for you the error in reasoning that is supposedly so obvious.
Should we take a lesser view of Scripture than Christ?
I suppose Sullivan is considered a superstar blogger by some. However, as one who read The Daily Dish regularly for a couple of years, I consider him far from superstar status. He was good early on but then quickly became another Catholic ranting at his Church and its stance against homosexuality. I stopped reading him several years ago because he had ranted himself into irrelavancy in my mind.
You, on the other hand, have stayed fresh and relevant. Your posts still demostrate a level of thoughtfulness that Sullivan once had but has long since lost.
I suppose Sullivan is considered a superstar blogger by some.
I really meant to refer only to the sheer volume of his readers. I don’t read his blog and never have. American politics are not all that interesting to this Canadian guy…
God is sovereign in His servants lives. He allows for us to be unsettled, or disturbed in our spiritual lives at times. It may not feel good, and it doesn’t, but it exposes our hearts, and then shapes them.
Be encouraged, for you are surely fighting the good fight of faith. Keep on.
For what it’s worth, I hold a minor in philosophy and I’m certain that your reasoning would pass a freshman philosophy class. (Though, depending on the philosophical presuppositions of the professor, along with how well he or she could separate these presuppositions from the grading process, you might not get an “A.”)
However, I would have liked to see you interact with the main objection that I’ve been hearing from the emergent conversation- one that was brought out in the comment thread of the last post; namely, that God used sinners to communicate His Word and so we should expect both errors in the Scriptures and that the truth of His Word would yet be communicated in those Scriptures. I suppose an analogy would be to our preaching, which we would admit contains [hopefully minor] errors, since we are yet subject to sin, but we do not expect our hearers to denounce us as liars due to this fact.
I would like to stress that I do not hold to the view expressed above, I simply think that it is the most difficult objection and one that must be answered.
As a Philosophy major, I have to say that basically every argument Tim puts forth (that I’ve read, which is admittedly far from all of the ones contained here on the site) is logically sound and therefore merits serious consideration.
Quite frankly, you could submit the articles on inerrancy to an upper years philosophy course and get a stellar mark… if you submitted it to a first year course they might just give you course credit and let you skip ahead.
You are welcome at my compound any day, Tim.
Tim: Be encouraged! I think that when the cynics respond, as Andrew Sullivan has done, it is an indication that your arguments have had the greatest impact on their, supposedly, superior sensibilities.
As I read the series of three posts, I was impressed with your well reasoned and well written positions. Throughout, I was hoping that Steve Camp was reading as those articles followed so closely on the heals of his silly criticism of your book, or more precisely of you as an author. Perhaps Camp is another case-in-point to that made in the paragraph above. Or perhaps his was more a case of jealousy or haughty superiority.
“his reasoning is not of the level to pass a freshman philosophy class.”
I took my BA in philosophy, and if you couldn’t pass a freshman class, I don’t know how I must have survived those senior seminars on Wittgenstein and Intelligent Design.
If you’d like to interact with Mr. Spencer and the Spencer-ites, I would suggest you make them back up their claim that “there are far too many direct factual internal contradictions in the Bible”. If you can’t back up your assertions with proof or a real argument (ie, give book, chapter and verse as to where these contradictions are to be found), then you most certainly could never pass freshman-level philosophy. Charges of internal contradictions fall to pieces when you hand someone a Bible and say “I’m from Missouri: Show me.” Such men do not investigate these claims for themselves and blindly accept what other people tell them without actually checking it for themselves (another thing that wouldn’t fly in a freshman philosophy class).
You do raise a very good point: are we going to go fetal in the corner when someone objects to what we say and calls us names, or do we have the courage and fortitude to stand for what is True? Keeping 1 Corinthians 1 in mind helps me.
Tim!
Get mad (angry) and go get a MDiv!
:)
Tim,
Good response. Did you really expect any more of a response?
Press on!
Mark
Tim,
“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.” Luke 6:22-23
Thanks for being faithful to proclaim truth.
Thanks for your posts and for your life. I was converted to a belief in biblical inerrancy decades ago through a professor who used logic quite similar to what you posted. The Lord will reward you for your faithfulness, and his rewards will last long after this world’s respect and fame have all evaporated.
As for being a fundamentalist, I your position may be somewhat like mine: I’m not eager to be called a fundamentalist because of the cultural baggage that usually comes with it, but I am determined to stand for the fundamentals of the faith (and for ALL of the faith, for that matter). Your blog has helped me grow in that.
This reminds me of a story that John Woodbridge of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School relates. A Number of years ago he was invited to speak at at Christian student group at Princeton. At first he thought it was a great honor so he accepted the invitation to speak on Scripture. So when he shows up and speaks with the organizers he asks how they heard about him. “Oh one of our professors told us that you are into the occult because you worship your Bible and we wanted to see what a person into the occult is like.” So as Piper said in a recent blog post—if you can’t beat them distort them.
David
It seems that Sullivan prefers an article Michael Spencer wrote in response to mine. … Speaking candidly, I don’t see that Spencer said anything with enough clarity to know whether a person could agree with him.
I wouldn’t worry unduly about either Sullivan or Michael Spencer. Although both have written interesting commentary, overall, both are found wanting and have apparently chosen to take the wide road.
In Michael Spencer’s post “My Theology Can Beat Up Your Theology: Thoughts on always saying more than the other guy” he wrote the following:
“Among those who are doing theology, however, I detect something that I can only call, with any honesty, a kind of game. I’ll call it the “More, Higher, Most, Highest” game. … The “More, Higher, Most, Highest” game is the tendency to escalate theological claims and language, and to claim that the escalation of claims and language indicates an accompanying increase in truth, faith, commitment or other valuable commodities among Christians.”
I submitted a comment asking whether the Roman Catholic Magisterium play what he calls the “More, Higher, Most, Highest” game. He never allowed my comment to be posted.
His post-evangelical journey is mostly a diatribe against historic and orthodox reform Protestantism
dictionary.com offers this definition of Fundamenatlist:
“a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.”
So I would simply ask, that does describe you or not?
Wow, what a brilliant marketing strategy. He sends a thousand readers to your site, who had never heard of you and you send a thousand readers to his site, who had never heard of him.
Your Google page rank goes up, affiliates pay more money to advertise and you sell more of your books! Brilliant.
:)
Tim,I’m a fairly new reader of your blog. Must say that I have enjoyed your blogs the last couple of weeks. Found it not only well written, but challenging as well. Just thought I’d let you know how much I enjoy reading your blog everyday!
Tim is Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps with perfume. Just look at who praises his book.
Andrew Lindsey wrote:”that God used sinners to communicate His Word and so we should expect both errors in the Scriptures and that the truth of His Word would yet be communicated in those Scriptures.”
One possible response is to point out that unlike preachers of the word who are fallible in proclaiming the interpretation of God’s word. The scriptures were given by God through his Apostles and Prophets. The Apostolic office and what that means to us today is part of the foundation of knowing we have indeed the very word of God and not the word of Men. You see Paul placing great emphasis on his own calling as an Apostle and the Authority of God that carries when he says in Gal 1.1 … not from men neither by man but by the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead. Then spends much of chapters 1 and 2 defending his Apostolic calling. He could also say, “we have the mind of Christ.” There was special significance to the apostles who were promised the Holy Spirit who would bring all things to remembrance whatsover he had told them.
I cannot recommend highly enough a book by Louis Gaussen called, Theopneustia, The Verbal Plenary Inspiration of Scripture. I believe monergism.com is offering this same book but under another title - I’m not sure if it is exactly the same — wish I knew.
Tim, I think you would also really enjoy this book as a thorough work on the subject of inspiration - it greatly deepened my own understanding.
sda
Tim is Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps with perfume. Just look at who praises his book.
This is clearly meant as an insult to both Tim and to the ones who praise his book.
Let’s all turn the other cheek.
Well, the word “fundamentalist” hasn’t had any real meaning for decades, other than as a term of derision.
It’s even less useful of a description than “evangelical” is anymore.
This echo chamber is getting too loud!. Please, some dissent!
This echo chamber is getting too loud!. Please, some dissent!
Your comment is better directed towards Andrew Sullivan’s blog, or even better, towards Michael Spencer’s Internet Monk blog. Michael Spencer screens every comment before it gets posted. Tim Challies doesn’t do that.
Tim,
Who says that you have to study philosophy to understand scripture? Who says you have to go to a seminar to know truth? Why would you want to know philosophy from a fallen man’s wisdom, instead of submitting to the authoritative word of God? God says scripture is inerrant in its original manuscripts…so why would we even care what men think?
Your posts on inerrancy were great, and I know that many people like me learned a lot from them, as we do with almost everything you write.
Tim,
I’m a new reader to your blog and have very much enjoyed your clear and thoughtful writing on subjects important to me. Forgive me, however, if I’m just being ornery, but I find the tone of this post and some of the comments a little disturbing. Being called a fundamentalist and having your writings dismissed poor philosophy is not persecution. It’s discussion. It may be discussion at a low level (missing real arguments), but that should encourage us to engage rather than retreat into a “I’ve been misunderstood” depression. This is one of the reasons, in my view, that many find us evangelicals to be self righteous. When our views are criticized we act as if some sort of offense has been committed. We then console one another as if we’ve lost a loved one. Good grief!
For the record, I too believe in inerrancy, though I do not hold it in quite so positive a way. I believe there are objections that can be raised against the doctrine for which I don’t have very good answers. I hope I encourage those objections (as I believe your three posts on the doctrine do) so that we can have real discussion.
The objection to inerrancy enunciated (although not necessarily argued) in post #8 above has a flawed premise: “God used sinners to communicate His Word and so we should expect both errors in the Scriptures and that the truth of His Word would yet be communicated in those Scriptures.” This idea mistakenly conflates inerrancy and infallibility and has been held even by some otherwise very bright people. Karl Barth, I’m told, accused the inerrantists of having a docetic doctrine of Scripture; he supposedly cited the proverbial “truism” that “to err is human” as support. While we all make mistakes and none of us is infallible, it is simply not true that humans necessarily err; the truism is not true if taken rigorously. Not to brag, but in grade school I completed several inerrant spelling tests. I can write out an inerrant shopping list. I can inerrantly add a column of figures. I assure one and all that I am fully human and no more than that.
It may be statistically improbable that a work composed of 66 books written by different human authors over many centuries would not contain a single error. But it is not impossible, nor is it even necessary to maintain human authorship. And when one considers the superintendancy of the Holy Spirit over the entire process, one ups the likelihood of inerrancy considerably.
Tim, keep soaking in the good words of the Lord. This article is one of the most meaningful you’ve ever written; it is indeed where the rubber meets the road.
Being mocked by the world is hard enough, but when it is joined by voices within the church it’s even harder. I pray that we will always be willing to be thought ignorant and undignified by the world, even by some who profess godliness.
“Then those who feared the Lord spoke with one another. The Lord paid attention and heard them, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who feared the Lord and esteemed his name. “They shall be mine, says the Lord of hosts, in the day when I make up my treasured possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his son who serves him. Then once more you shall see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him” (Malachi 3:16-18)
Tim,Did you once use a tagline that said: Putting the fun back in fundamentalism?”
Tim,
You are teaching us so much about how to respond when attacked for the sake of the gospel. Thank you so much for your openness and humility. My husband and I will be praying for you, friend!
There are NO contrdictions ins the Bible. When someone says that there are I share these precious passages to prove them wrong…oops
ON THE SABBATH DAY”Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5
ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH”… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4
“… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10
ON SEEING GOD”… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30
“No man hath seen God at any time…”— John 1:18
ON HUMAN SACRIFICE”… Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God…” — Leviticus 18:21
[In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] “… If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” (Judges 11:30-31).
[The terms were acceptable to god — remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future — so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] — Judges 11:29-34
ON THE POWER OF GOD”… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26
“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
ON DEALING WITH PERSONAL INJURY”…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25
“…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39
ON CIRCUMCISION”This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10
“…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2
ON INCEST”Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22
“And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12
“And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16
ON TRUSTING GOD”A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD…” — Proverbs 12:2
Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” — Job 2:3
ON THE HOLY LIFE-STYLE”Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart…” — Ecclesiastes 9:7
“…they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not…” — 1 Corinthians 7:30
ON PUNISHING CRIME”The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20
“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
ON TEMPTATION”Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” — James 1:13
“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1
ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS”Honor thy father and thy mother…”— Exodus 20:12
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke 14:26
ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD”…he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. ” — Job 7:9
“…the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29
ON THE END OF THE WORLD”Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. ” — Matthew 16:28
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ” — Luke 21:32-33
“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” — Romans 13:11-12
“Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.” — James 5:8
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” — 1 John 2:18
“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” — 1 Peter 4:7
My, my, “Just me.” You have been busy.
Have you been equally industrious in researching these apparent difficulties? Or does it suffice simply to kick up dust for others?
Ken,often when someone produces a list like ‘Just me’ has, they have often never researched the original document, but rather cut and paste from less dubious sources. I’m with Ken, ‘Just me’ befriend someone who knows a thing or two, sit down with them and find out something.
You see Ken and Kletois, I am a Fundamentalist. It says what it says. I don’t need to listen to others rationalizations (the rationalizations of man). I trust the inerrant word of God, I just had the selfless grace to share. Suffice it to say “Who am I going to believe? You, or my own lying eyes?”
Tim wasn’t being persecuted for the gospel in Andrew Sullivan’s column; he simply disagreed with him over an assertion on inerrancy — that’s all.
And while inerrancy is an important issue and Tim did a fine job on his three articles here concerning it, it’s also important for us to remember that Mr. Sullivan is unregenerate—he is not a Christian. May we pray for this man that the Lord would grant him saving faith; open his blinded eyes to the glorious light of the gospel of Jesus Christ; give him the sorrow befitting repentance of sin; so that he by the regenerating ministry of the Holy Spirit may come to confess and know that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of his life.
Wouldn’t it be great if he became our brother in Christ and was delivered from the wrath to come?
And isn’t that what’s really important here?
Tim, I read your blog regularly through 2007 (and intend to do so in 200) and have gained much encouragement from it. As one who battles with what others think of me I understand that those comments hurt. I pray that you find joy and strength in the Lord. This is such a great testimony to see you “.. believe what I (you) do enough to be unashamed when people mock me (you)? “God bless you Tim
I’m impressed by your reaction to criticism. Thank you for being faithful to the Word in your response.
Such is life in the ‘religious’ fast lane. I think God has opened a great opportunity in ways no one will see completely. I know you’ve probably considered it, but what about a link to a doc proclaiming the gospel that a visitor might click?
And when one considers the superintendency of the Holy Spirit over the entire process, one ups the likelihood of inerrancy considerably.” Ken
Excellent comment all in all.
I get fairly tired of the attacks on inerrancy that look for surface level contradictions— proof texts that some people think show that the Bible is inherently flawed (and are a sign of reading the Bible at a very elementary level, frankly). Now, if you want to talk about some of the deeper tensions of Scripture, that’s a more valuable conversation—for both atheist and believer.
Within the past year there were more than 1,000 attacks upon Christians in India. These attacks included four murders, 730 house burnings and 95 church burnings.
More recently Tim Challies was called a ‘fundamentalist’ and accused of poor philosophical skills. The faithful marvel at how well Tim responded to these vicious attacks.
It is sad that we jump so quickly to defensiveness. The above comment (29) makes the most appropriate point I’ve seen. Can we hear any dissenting viewpoint and consider the other’s position for discussion? Not all disagreement is attack. When there is an accusation that one has used weak reasoning, even in what might seem like a biting way, perhaps there could be a healthy discussion rather than “the joining of sides against the others” that has divided children of God forever. There are many useful comments on Michael Spencer’s blogsite. It is disturbing when Christians not only seem to be “against” all non-Christians, but also against all Christians who don’t see things exactly as they do. Yes, Tim, refrain from allowing biting criticism to affect how you feel about yourself, but do not fall into the trap of completely dismissing other viewpoints. The greatest communicators are confident and secure enough to even enjoy a spirited debate. It will sharpen you (and all of us) to consider and re-consider all.
Well, we might do Just Me the courtesy of responding to at least one of his comments. Just Me, if you’re willing to engage us seriously, I’d welcome your thoughts and arguments.
I’ll take just one: The permanence of the earth. The physicla planet of earth, with everything on it, will be destroyed with fire, and the reference you cite in 2 Peter is correct.
Ecclesiastes is a different kind of book. The author here is making a point about the futility of life. The point of Eccles. 1:4 is that the conceit of men that we make lasting change is just that—a conceit of men. The “earth” of Eccles. 1:4 is not the physical planet but the worldly system that we inhabit. The failure of worldly man is the general theme of Eccles, and most of the book consists of illustrations of . that failure.
Keep reading Ecclesiastes through Chapter 2, for example, and you’ll find a lifestyle that NO Christian in his right mind would endorse. (but you have to read all the way to Eccles. 2:23 to get the final point.)
Well, enough for now. Anyone else for rational arguments based on the texts?
Tim,I don’t think there is any problem with you taking a “stand” for inerrancy. Thousands of big name Christian bloggers hold to inerrancy. I think it was your reasoning that denying inerrancy makes God out to be a liar that caused the fuss. I hold to inerrancy, yet thought that statement went too far and the reasoning used to get there was insufficient. As has been shown in the comments of that post, you can reject inerrancy and still believe God to be honest and sovereign. For you to make that statement requires presuppositions that not all believers, or even all evangelicals believers, or even fundamentalist believers hold.
Just Me,
One of the healthy effects of the doctrine of inerrancy is that it forces me to see that when reading the Scriptures I don’t always understand as much as I think I do. When I’m confronted with what looks like a contradiction rather than just stopping there I have to let the Scriptures challenge my perception, and sometimes I find a more complete understanding. Tom gives a good example of this. I don’t agree with some of the comments above that seem to imply we can resolve everything. I know I can’t. If, however, I assume that the problem is with my understanding and resist the temptation to force a passage for the sake of consistency, I’ve found I can discover a richer view that I would have missed otherwise. As an example (using one that you point out), I read both that God does and doesn’t tempt. If I stop at the “contradiction” what do I learn? James may be right and then again he may be wrong. If I keep probing I find a richness in what is taught about temptation. Viewed objectively, temptations are tests. When my faith is tested God proves to be true. So James tells me to consider it all joy when I’m tested (James 1:3). A test, however, can be given with an evil intent, with the purpose of causing me to sin. James says God never tests in this way. As an example, suppose I lose a friend. How do I see God’s role in this? Is God bringing a painful and difficult test in order to strengthen my faith or is He trying to plunge me into a faithless despair? James, if I understand him, says God never tests me in this later way. For this reason, even in the face of the loss of my friend, I can trust God and face the test with joy. That’s what I believe Abraham did.
Those who are making a point about persecution are making the same mistake those who believe there are contradictions in the bible do, you are not understanding what he is saying.
He wrote about being attacked, not about discussion. Someone saying that his view is wrong is completely different than someone who ridicules him. It is important to understand that there are people being killed because of Christ, but it is also important to see other battles that are going on as well. They are all attacks on the cross, no matter the severity.
Well, Tim, having taken freshman philosophy, I can tell you that you would be far too discerning for it. In addition, you are in good company being called a fundamentalist. Al Mohler has recently been labeled a fundamentalist by the group that opposes his nomination for Pres of the SBC. And finally, rejoice, for as we are told in I Peter 4:14-If you are reviled for Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evil doer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.