Founder of one of America's most well-known "emergent" churches
Creator and host of award-winning NOOMA video series
Star of two national speaking tours ("Everything is Spiritual" and "The God's Aren't Angry")
Recently dubbed "The Next Billy Graham" by a popular culture magazine
Do you believe the hype? What's he do best? What's he do worst?
Creator and host of award-winning NOOMA video series
Star of two national speaking tours ("Everything is Spiritual" and "The God's Aren't Angry")
Recently dubbed "The Next Billy Graham" by a popular culture magazine
Do you believe the hype? What's he do best? What's he do worst?
22 comments:
Yes, you should believe the hype insofar as he is popular. The good thing about Rob Bell is that he is a good communicator and does make some nice looking videos, etc.
Now for the bad (which is more than the good). Rob Bell, as part of the emerging movement is not as far out there as Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, or Tony Campolo, but the philosophy behind his theology is still dangerous. He has said that he wants to recast Christianity as a Eastern religion. Clearly, he has done this. If a Christian is astute and listens to what he says, you can easily pick up on it. If his book, Velvet Elvis, he basically states that if the Virgin Birth was proved to be bogus and false, then Christianity is still the best "Way" (emerging buzz word) to live. The problem with this statement is that it has much further ramifications. For instance, if the virgin birth is false, then the writers of the New Testament are liars and purposely deceived us (to reach followers of first-century cults, according to Bell), then Jesus is not divine, thus making the atonement, resurrection, and forgiveness of sins obsolete. Like dominos, all the basic beliefs of Christianity are gone and you are left with no Christianity at all. Christianity is an historic faith and one that rises and falls on the truthfulness that it actually happened, just as Paul tells us in I Corinthians 15. As buddist monks told an evangelical scholar one time, as well as looking at the quotes of Ghandi (both Eastern relgiions), it doesn't matter whether Jesus really lived or if any of the historical stuff is true, the important thing is that the teaching exists. That's exactly what Bell is claiming. Plus, if you listen to his sermon or Nooma video on "Breathing", you can easily see the connection with meditation as defined by the Eastern religions. Add to the fact that he invited a Catholic nun to speak at his church who comes from place where they believe in mysticism and the mystic practices.
Also, Bell does not believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, but rather a human product as he and his wife said in Christianity Today. Add this to the fact that he dodges certain issues, such as homosexuality by claiming that no one can make a judgement on homosexuality unless they know one. Really? So following his logic, I just throw out what the Bible says and I really can't say anything about murder, adultery, or other issues unless I know a murderer or adulterer? Lousy logic. Plus, he contradicts himself throughout his books.
Finally, he doesn't believe in absolute, objective truth which is dangerous too. He makes absolute claims that we can't know absolutes.
In today's Western church, if something is popular today then it probably isn't good. I'm not going to put a blanket statement on all big churches, but with the lack of discipleship and Christians reading and soaking up the first thing they come across in a Christian bookstore, it's no wonder Bell is popular. Most people don't know what they believe, let along why. This part is the fault of the modern church.
Uhh, what he/she said.
Dang Johnny...
bleached hair is a stumbling block to my faith.
Art Bell? I love that guy! Wait.
I've only seen one of his snazzy videos. That's the extent of my knowledge. And I don't play guilt by association (McLaren is wacky, but that's his problem, not Bell's). If, however, he has said what Mr. Anonymous claims, than he's a heretic and should be treated as such. I'm in no position to know. I am in a position to know that "emergent" is usually the same old problems in sandals, and I'm no fan.
"Then," that is. Crap! I suck at comments today. I drove all last night.
I think "Anonymous" should throw in some resources to go along with those claims. Not that they aren't true but heck just because someone heard that Rob Bell was a heretic from the pulpit or a book or an article does not mean much really.
Rob Bell appears to know his stuff, but If I were filming a video on the Hebrew words for Love, guess what, I'd study up too. Is he a heretic? Who knows.
As far as his views on Christianity go... big deal. We all know the term 'Christian' as become the tail that wags the dog so to speak. We've become a people who DO based on what is modeled and expected rather than on something that is intrinsically built in and self-initiating.
But that's another story. I do think Rob Bell does a great job at reaching people who's style is similar to his. I do not think Rob Bell could minister effectively to the senior adults in my church, which if we're honest... is a problem.
(and his or her name...)
One thing in fairness to Bell:
"Eastern" can mean several things. The Orthodox Church and its theology are "Eastern." If by the word Bell means "oriental" in the older sense of the term (referring to the Near East), well, Christianity arose from that particular milieu and there are certainly some aspects of it at least that need to be regained. I believe he errs if he believes that the Faith delivered in that context was to remain in that context, as there are plenty of aspects of Biblical thought that are foreign to oriental thinking as well, and the Kingdom with its thinking has come to displace all systems and reconstruct all society.
If by "eastern" he means "like the Hindus and Buddhists," well, that's just more of the same crap liberals have been saying for a century or so.
Great communicator. Smart guy. Good videos. Somehow pulls of his new-age Buddy Holly look pretty well.
But, having listened to the messages delivered at his church by himself and others, the dude's theology and doctrine are pretty shaky. In one such message he all but came out and said he didn't believe in a literal hell. He has allowed people who believe God's knowledge is limited and requires our input on ruling the universe (Open Theists aka heretics) to speak in his church.
I am fine with embracing mystery, but creating mystery for the sake of turning black and white truths into grey matter is not something I am into.
Mr. Anonymous...I like it. Of course, I could be helping everyone enter into "mystery"!
Per Robert Conn's request, here are my sources. I apologize for not including them in my first post, but I was in a hurry and just put down some thoughts quickly.
1. The passage I referred to where Bell discusses the Virgin Birth can be found in Velvet Elvis, pgs. 26-27. This is in my copy which was sent to me from a friend in Australia, so if the page numbers differ, than that is the reason.
2. My reference to the Buddhist Monks came from the book, Passionate Conviction, pg. 165. This quote was not talking about Bell at all, but rather comparing the differences between Christ and Buddha. I just found the similarities between this quote and the quote in Velvet Elvis above to be remarkable.
3. The reference to the nun that was brought into Bell's church was found in Faith Undone, pg. 111. It refers to a Dominican nun brought into Bell's church on March 19, 2006 in which Bell introduced her by saying, "I have a friend who has taught me so much about resting in the presence of God" and then the congregation was led in various meditative exercises. This nun is from the Dominican Center at Marywood in Michigan where various contemplative/mystic practices are used and taught. One is Reiki which is a therapeutic touch. The basic belief behind it is that everything in the universe is united together through energy.
The quote from Ghandi comes from Bruce L. Shelley's book, "Church History in Plain Language".
4. The reference to the "Breathing" can be seen on his Nooma video of the same title. Also, I have the sermon on my computer with the same title that he taught at his church.
5. The references to Christianity as an "Eastern religion" and that the Bible is a "human product" can be found in the November 2004 issue of Christianity Today written by Andy Crouch.
6. I can't remember the reference where I found Bell discuss the topic of homosexuality. It may have been an article written about one of his latest seminars. I read so many things on this topic that I can't remember them all. I apologize. I do know that Ben Witherington III, professor at Asbury Seminary, talked about this on his blog. Though a fan of Bell's, he did make a comment on this topic where he disagreed with Bell, as well as a comment on Bell's need to find better sources for his dodgy Jewish Christianity studies.
6. The comment on objective truth can be found throughout his books. Like most Emergent leaders, you need to read into what they are saying since they are like trying to pin jell-o to the wall. He does say on pg. 23 of Velvet Elvis, "Our words aren't absolutes. Only God is absolute, and God has no intention of sharing this absoluteness with anything, especially words people have come up with to talk about him". Of course, the glaring problem with this statement is...Why is he using words to make an absolute statement that our words aren't absolute? Plus, if we can't use words to fully describe God, then how come Bell just used words to describe God (i.e. he is indescribable)?
7. In the endnotes, Bell makes positive comments on Marcus Borg, professor at Oregon State. The same Marcus Borg from the Jesus Seminar. No further comment needed.
Those are just some of the sources I have come across, though I have found many more. The only thing that really comes to mind with Bell and other Emergent leaders is Galatians 1:6-10.
Let me just say that I do agree with Johnny on two accounts. First, Eastern can mean many things, but based upon various things written and said by Bell, I believe he is referring to the more Buddhist and Hindu version of it where it's not really important about the historicity of the Christian faith, but rather as long as the teachings survive and exist, then we have the real Christianity.
Also, you are exactly right about the similarities with liberalism. If you look at Emergent theology, it's basically a re-packaging of 19th and 20th century liberalism with a little Liberation Theology thrown in there.
Sorry for writing way too much here!
Thanks, Mr. A.
You highlight a really important point about the silliness pomos get into with their talk about language. The Absolute God reveals Himself through His creature, language. That revelation stands, and is not made mushy by the fact that it was written down by men. God communicates clearly.
Interestingly, they have the same problem the Moslems do. One of the suras in the Koran is interpreted by their imams to teach that Allah is inexpressible in human language. Well, all that means if true is that their book says nothing about Allah!
So it is for us if we let in all kinds of doubt about the sufficiency or perspicuity of the Word.
I'm dreading the time I fear is rapidly approaching that I'm going to have to sit down and read more of the emergent stuff, in order to know better how to refute it. What I've read so far has stolen time from me which would have been better spent. It doesn't take a lot for me recognize the same old modernist problems repackaged for a younger crowd. Then the boredom starts...
You know...I've never actually SEEN Johnny and Mr. A together...
MMMMMMMM...
How would you know?
Let me say this...I know I've already blogged two more times since this post and it may be a dead thing by now, but I do think there's something important to be said.
Anonymous - let me commend you on the spirit of your comments here. Everybody knows that tone is just too plain hard to read in text form, but I have to say that while you've certainly held a firm position, you seem to have done so in a way that is honest, yet considerate, and I think that is extremely God honoring.
We all like this forum where we get to voice our opinions, but we also all know what can happen when folks type before they think.
So, thanks man. I appreciate your comments.
Hey Todd, Mr. A here. I appreciate your comments and kind remarks towards my posting on here. I completely agree with you that many times it is hard to decipher tone on here and the way in which people are writing what they do. I tried my best to be truthful and honest, not shying away or watering things down, but at the same time, doing so with humility. I try to keep in mind 1 Peter 3:15 which reminds us to do so with "gentleness and respect". I'm afraid I don't always do this, but I'm glad you felt that it came across that way in this particular forum since that was my goal.
I enjoy reading your blog and look forward to posting when I have the opportunity and something to say.
God bless!
I am a fan of Rob Bell but agree that there are some dangers with his theology. However I think that some of the things that have been picked out as his faults are a bit off base...so please forgive the ridiculously long post. First off, while I believe in the virgin birth, I think it is a profound mistake to include it in the fundamentals of the faith, which “Anonymous”, as well as the founders of the fundamentalist movement(those behind the pamphlet, "The Fundamentals"-1945), has done in his critique of Bell. This of course harkens to some of the issues surrounding the Greek word used for virgin on one level, but on a deeper level it calls to light the issue of biblical innerancy and one’s specific view of it. I believe a phrase Anonymous uses will explain this well—“For instance, if the virgin birth is false, then the writers of the New Testament are liars and purposely deceived us (to reach followers of first-century cults, according to Bell), then Jesus is not divine, thus making the atonement, resurrection, and forgiveness of sins obsolete. Like dominos, all the basic beliefs of Christianity are gone and you are left with no Christianity at all.” What we have here is a good example of the “domino theory” which unfortunately pervades much theological thinking, particularly on the far right, and it goes something like this...if there is even one error of any kind in the Scriptures, then none of it can truly be trusted. Now if you buy into this, then it certainly makes a compelling case, but it is not at all a self-evident assertion. Behind this is the issue of whether or not the Bible has any real human element or not. If you think it doesn’t then you have some explaining to do(though it can be done), and you will buy into the domino theory because if God is the author of every single part of Scripture, then there can be no errors of any kind in it. More explanation could and probably should be done on this and why the virgin birth is not a necessary precursor to Jesus’ divinity, the atonement, and resurrection...but I’m already going to write too much.
And it was also said that Bell basically believes that it does not matter if any of the events in Scripture actually happened, but what matters is the teaching. I believe this also is off base. To say that an event might not have happened exactly as the Scriptures say and to say none of the events happened are completely different statements. What Bell and many who hold a view similar to his would say is that while certain events(mainly, the fall, exodus, incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection) had to have happened in some way very similar to the way described in the Bible(so that they do not lose their meaning), they did not have to happen exactly as the Bible says(those who do not agree then likely do not believe there to be any real human element in Scripture and thus ascribe to the aforementioned domino theory).--For some good reading on this check out "Models of Revelation" by Avery Dulles.
To touch briefly on what was said about his view of Scripture, to believe that there is some real human element in Scripture is not the same thing as believing it is not divinely inspired. Believe it or not, there are some people who think the Bible can have real human elements and still be divinely inspired(excuse the sarcasm)...and they are not heretics or liberals.
Finally, Bell does believe in absolute truth, but believes that we should be more humble and cautious with our claims about what that is in many cases. I struggled with this in dealing with Bell at first, but I feel I understand it better now. Put it this way...I believe that there is a black and white out there(absolute truth); however, I believe we live in a world that can be very grey sometimes, and so we should exercise extreme humility in our claims about what is black and what is white. Liberalism would hold there is no black and white, Bell would hold that there is, but that it is often hard for us to see from our limited perspective. Some would take this too far and cultivate it into some kind of spineless Christianity, but that is their mistake and not a necessary conclusion.
As for my take on Bell, most of my problems with him are matters of emphasis. I think a lot of the things he says are in reaction to the far right and a certain interpretation of Christianity...especially Fundamentalism. Put him in a vacuum where he doesn’t feel the pressure of the far right brand of Christianity and a lot of those problems go away. That said, I am with Anonymous’s assertion that for people who are not theologically grounded, some of Bell’s stuff could trip them up on some level. But for a lot of others, Bell provides a fresh and orthodox interpretation of the Christian life.
Shalom--Austin
It's Mr. A. again. Thanks Austin for your post and thoughts on the topic of Rob Bell. I appreciate your insights and addition to this discussion concerning the teachings of Bell. As believers, it is important to help each other as "iron sharpens iron". (Proverbs 27:17)
Here are a few thoughts and clarification about what I was writing, though I'm not sure if I am speaking for the "far right", as you put it. I am not saying that the Bible was given to us in the sense that the writers were merely robots writing verbatim what the Lord told them to write (such as Muslims believe about the Koran). I believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God written through the personalities of the writers. I believe there is overwhelming evidence that the writers told the truth (especially the Gospel writers). For example, Colin Hemer chronicled verse by verse Luke's account in Acts. He found 84 facts in the last 16 chapters that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. Every time a spade hits the ground in archaeology, it confirms the Biblical account. Peters writes, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16) I don't have time nor space to go into all the evidence for this topic, but if I know they told the truth in every other area of their writings, why would I believe that the gospel writers threw in the virgin birth to appeal to the first-century cults of Dyonisius, et. all in order to reach them? That would be more in tune with the emergent view of theology where we change the message of the Bible in order to reach a "postmodern" generation. The Gospel writers were more concerned about getting the history correct and not invent a new theology. Of course, what they wrote has dramatic implications for theology, but that wasn't their purpose. If it was theology and not history, then N.T. Wright is correct when he says, "If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wanted to tell stories whose import was 'Jesus is risen, therefore you will be too', they have done a remarkably bad job of it." However, Bell is saying that it's okay if they just threw it in there to appeal to certain groups.
Do you need to believe in the virgin birth to be saved? The short answer is no. However, if Jesus had an earthly father (Larry, in Bell's case), then Jesus would be a sinner, since sin is passed on from the man's seed. A sinner would not be divine, nor would he have the capability or capacity to die as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. In fact, he would need a saviour himself! Thus, that is why I said that the death, resurrection, etc wouldn't be possible if there was no virgin birth. You don't have to believe in it to be saved, since it is not a condition for salvation, but it would be logically inconsistant to do so. I agree with you in the difference between an event not actually happening the way it was described and not actually happening. However, it's clear that in Bell's scenario, he is throwing out the Virgin Birth as fact.
Also, when addressing the issue of human elements and divine inspiration, I agree with you. (see above). However, my issue with Bell is that in his writings and statements, that doesn't seem to be the case with him. If the gospel writers threw in the virgin birth as mythology, then what else do I take as mythology that they write? The problem arises in that we enter into a "slippery slope fallacy" when we say some parts are inspired and others aren't. Whose to say which are inspired and which aren't? Where do we start and then stop?
I agree with you (and Bell)that not everything in this world is black and white. Yes, there are some relative truths out there (mainly preferences). However, the things that the Bible lays out as true are the things that I believe to be black and white. Sometimes Bell tends to blend the black and white to make grey in matters of the Bible.
Bell claims to affirm the historic, orthodox Christian faith. At this point in time, he is not as far out there as Brian McLaren or some other emergent leaders. However, my concern is where he starts to throw out statements that bring into question the historic faith and basically just say that it's okay if it's wrong because it's still the best way to live. Also, such statements as, "By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived and explained.” (Velvet Elvis, p. 12)
Plus, his introduction of mysticism and other eastern practices concerns me, as well. In one of his sermons, Bell makes the following statment, "There is a greatness [in mankind]. The writer here [of Psalm 8] uses the word “glory and honor” that resides in every single human being. Fragile and yet filled with the potential for glory and honor. I love how Nelson Mandela puts it in one of his writings. He says, “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.”
And then he concludes by saying, “Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. We were born to manifest the glory—put on display, to show—the glory of God that is within us.” Bell says, “you may be a dirt clod, but there is greatness and power and glory that resides in every single human being.” The problem with this statement (besides the obvious humanism) is that it actually comes from New Age guru, Marianne Williamson in her book, "A Return To Love: Reflections on the Principles of A COURSE". Compare the quotes, "our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond all measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us the most.’ We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, famous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn’t serve the world.
There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just some of us; it’s in everyone. And, as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. And as we’re liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."
(190,191)
As noted, I think we both agree that his stuff can be a detriment to those young Christians or other Christians who are not theologically grounded. Unfortunately, that's most of Christendom. As C.S. Lewis astutely noted in The Abolition of Man concerning relativism, "It is not a theory they put into his mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all." (p.5) Bell is suttle most of the time and the philosophy behind his message can be dangerous.
I would love to hear any other thoughts that you or anyone might have on this topic.
God bless!
I enjoy the conversation as well, and appreciate your humility…as well as conviction.
I understand the thought process concerning the necessity of the virgin birth, but think one of its major premises is quite questionable; namely, that sin is passes through man’s seed…that is his semen. And for whatever reason, this tends to be many people’s default understanding of sin and its transmission…when you really think it out, that it is essentially some physical substance passed through semen. It was my understanding as well until I evaluated it and found it lacking, especially when you consider the lack of scriptural support for such an idea. Indeed the Greek word for seed(sperma), is used around 40 times in the NT, and only a couple of those usages actually refer to semen, as the overwhelming majority refer to descendants or some other metaphorical usage…and the ones that do actually refer to semen are not connected to the idea of sin being passed through it.
When you believe this then the syllogism works, but this is quite a strange understanding of sin in my estimation. And I think all this discussion about the virgin birth highlights a deeper problem that Bell himself is pointing out in the section in question: that for many, non-fundamental doctrines are thrown in with the fundamental doctrines, and yet worse, people often base the fundamental doctrines on the non-fundamental ones. And our discussion of the virgin birth is a wonderful example…as apparently, the atonement(one of the core Christian beliefs), is built upon Jesus being born of a virgin. This is an example of outside-in, instead of inside-out theology in my opinion. Thus, while I believe in the virgin birth, I do not believe in the *necessity* of the virgin birth. And once again, I think Bell’s point is made well…if, as you have said, Jesus’ divinity, the atonement, and our salvation are all undermined if Jesus was not born of a virgin, then surely the writers of Scripture, the early church fathers, and Jesus Himself would have placed as much emphasis on it as they did the atonement, Jesus’ divinity, and our salvation, and to say the least, they would have spelled it out much more plainly than they did.
I’m sure you can also draw out the parallels here with the issue of verbal plenary inerrancy…that is, for many, all the deepest and most important Christian doctrines are founded upon the complete inerrancy of Scripture. This is illustrated well in most systematic theology books written by those on the theological right(and forgive the generalizations…they just help for communication purposes), as they tend to start with the doctrine of full biblical inerrancy…why…because for them all the other doctrines are built upon it. And I think this is a profound mistake.
The issue underlying the question of errors in Scripture ultimately seems to come down to this: can Scripture be an authority if it has errors…any errors of any kind? I think the answer is yes (check out Paul Achtemeier-“Inspiration and Authority”), and while I agree that this admission can lead down a slippery slope, I think that is a pragmatic issue and not an inherent flaw of the position. My fear is that for many, the position of full biblical inerrancy is chosen because it is the easiest position to have. And to connect this with the virgin birth discussion, I believe in biblical inerrancy, but do not believe in the *necessity* of full biblical inerrancy. That is, I think there can be errors in Scripture(though not ones that would undermine the message), and do not find the “slippery slope” fear a compelling argument. Indeed it is not really an argument but more of a warning and reminder in my opinion…and a good reminder I might say. Thus, if you want to believe in full biblical inerrancy, it should be as a conclusion of your reading of the Bible and not a presupposition you impose on it.
And I think this also highlights something else, namely that the slippery slope/domino effect you have mentioned works both ways. Namely, that just as compromising truth can lead to some very serious error, so an over-emphasis on non-fundamental doctrines can lead to a petty brand of Christianity that finds its foundation in things other than the true historic foundational Christian beliefs. That brand of Christianity has to fight tooth and nail for doctrines like the virgin birth and verbal plenary inerrancy because if they go, all of Christianity goes…and once again, I think this is a most unsavory and unbiblical position.
As far as the introduction of mysticism into his brand of Christianity, I completely agree that Bell leans towards an “unhealthily” high view of humanity. He tends to talk about the ways we have been wronged instead of the ways we wrong ourselves with sin. He never, ever, talks about the glorification of God as the chief end of all things(which I believe he intentionally avoids in reaction against the recent rise in Calvinism, thanks to John Piper…who I love). And I think he certainly falls into some of the serious errors of the “emergent” movement…that is caring more about sounding trendy and cute than being clear(the bleached blonde hair has already been mentioned and might I add the unending allusions to the vintage music he loves which I suppose are meant to communicate how cultured he is), and being driven by an arrogance that is guised and touted as humility. And I really appreciate the Lewis quotation you used and think it is very pertinent, as I agree that being subtlety persuaded can be a dangerous thing when you don’t know where it is leading you. And thus I agree…Bell should be more up front with what he believes about some key issues.
Shalom-Austin
I appreciate your comments and your thorough explanation regarding the issues we have been discussing. It is great to examine these issues and positions in order to arrive at truth.
I do apologize for not responding earlier. It has been a crazy weekend and a busy few days this week and that is the reason I am just now responding.
At this point in the discussion, I don't really have much to offer as far as discussion. I do have a question though based upon some ideas you have written.
Since you believe that the Scriptures could have errors in it, though not in the major doctrines, are there any specific errors you can point out or was your point more of a hypothetical?
By no means is this question meant to sound sarcastic or arrogant. It is just a serious question I have in order to better understand you.
Thanks again for the discussion and I look forward to reading more.
I don’t mind at all and it certainly doesn’t sound arrogant. My point was certainly more of a hypothetical one, aimed at addressing the presupposition that many bring to the Scriptures--that it must be completely inerrant to be an authority--and show that in my opinion, it is not something we need bring to the text. And, that if you are to believe in inerrancy in one of its forms, it should be as a conclusion found after reading the text and not a presupposition imposed upon it(a conclusion-some form of inerrancy- that I think is correct to come to…but once again, indeed as a conclusion and not presupposition, and not complete/full inerrancy).
As far as the issue of specific errors, there are certainly numerous possible errors, all of which I might add are quite insignificant…that is unless you believe any error in Scripture undermines all its authority, in which case there is no such thing as an insignificant error. And it must also be mentioned that before getting into any debate on this topic you have to go about the difficult task of defining what we mean by error, and that is much easier said than done. There is of course always the issue of authorial intent…for example, when Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, he is indeed literally wrong, but I think it would be a mistake to call this an error as he’s not trying to make a scientific statement, but a theological one. And then there is the issue of accommodation…that is things being communicated so that the listeners could understand them instead of in a way that would be literally/realistically true but the listeners would not understand. And there is surely much more to say as evidenced by the countless volumes of books dedicated to this very issue.
So that said, this is certainly not a comprehensive list…you could however find one in many books on the topic…but just a few of the ones I think are quite difficult to explain away.
The first is the issue of the death of Judas. In Matthew 27:5 we are told that Judas hanged himself and then in Acts 1:18 we are told that he “fell headlong” and burst open in the middle…with his intestines gushing out I might add. Now as is the case with any possible error, those who hold the presupposition that the text must be completely inerrant will bend over backwards with possible explanations in order to preserve the complete inerrancy of the text. Thus I have heard some interesting explanations…that Judas hung himself over a cliff and the rope then broke, with him impaling himself on a rock, causing his intestines to spill out. And that is the best explanation I have heard. And I chose this example because it illustrates a common theme that arises…simply put, what seems like the best possible explanation of this seeming discrepancy we have? That the scenario aforementioned occurred, or that Luke, writing to a Gentile audience which unlike Matthew’s Jewish audience “saw suicide as morally neutral, wanted to stress the awfulness of Judas’ situation in a way that would grip his readers…so he evidently took the liberty of breaking into his received tradition in order to spell out the gory details of Judas’ suicide”? The quotation actually comes from The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, a very conservative commentary. Now is this to say that the other scenario is not possible?...of course not. But what it shows is the extreme explanations one has to go to in order to defend the complete inerrancy of Scripture…explanations that would likely never be offered if one did not come to the text with the aforementioned presupposition…explanations that often simply in no way seem like the best one.
There are numerous statistical discrepancies…did David kill 700 or 7000 Arameans(2 Samuel 10:18, 1 Chronicles 19:18), did David buy a threshing floor for 50 shekels of silver or 600 shekels of gold(2 Samuel 24:24, 1 Chronicles 21:25)? Discrepancies of Old Testament quotations…NT writers quote the Septuagint version of the OT and either misquote or make a point using a Greek word that was of course not in the Hebrew(so we are left to assume the Septuagint was inspired as well I suppose). Then of course we have the well noted issues of harmonization in the gospels…suffice to say, while I believe some of the issues can be harmonized, others are extremely questionable such as Peter’s denials or Jesus’ Jerusalem visits.
I think this is all summed up well with this thought…when it comes to the idea that the Bible is completely inerrant in every detail, “some other source than Scripture itself has led him to this conclusion.”-Achtemeir, Inspiration and Authority, pg. 57(and this book is of the best for discussing this issue). And what becomes especially plain is that all these potential errors are profoundly insignificant. They in no way undermine any important doctrine or belief, and if they are indeed errors, I do not think they undermine the authority of Scripture in the least. Thus when you are freed from the notion that in order to be an authority, Scripture must be completely inerrant, you can deal more honestly with the text, and do not sacrifice the authority of Scripture.
Shalom-Austin
Post a Comment