My first love, (apart from Christ of course!) has always been history - especially ancient and medieval history. In the past few years, however, I have been doing some reading in recent history (17th Century to the present). One of the most fascinating things that I have discovered is that people are pretty much the same in every epoch of time. This is certainly true of the Christian church and how Christians have handled modernity and the arrival of the scientific age.
In 1923 J. Greshem Machen, a professor of New Testament at Princeton University wrote a little book titled “Christianity and Liberalism.” The book was a critique of the theological liberalism prevalent in his day. Liberal theologians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries thought that they were “rescuing Christianity” from irrelevance and academic respectability by giving up certain key doctrines and lessening the language of Scripture to make it more relevant (I don’t imply here that these theologians used the word relevant, but that is indeed how they thought).
In the Introduction of his book, professor Machen states what was at stake in no uncertain terms. In essence, what he says is that when Christians of any age begin to compromise key doctrines to fit modern theories then they are literally abandoning the outer defenses of the Faith. He writes:
What is the relation between Christianity and modern culture; may Christianity be maintained in a scientific age? It is this problem which modern liberalism attempts to solve. Admitting that scientific objections may arise against the particularities of the Christian religion – against the Christian doctrines of the person of Christ, and of redemption through His death and resurrection – the liberal theologians seeks to rescue certain of the general principles of religion, of which these particularities are thought to be mere temporary symbols, and these general principles he regards as being “the essence of Christianity.”
It may well be questioned, however, whether this method of defence [i.e. apologetics] will really prove to be efficacious; for after the apologist has abandoned his outer defences to the enemy and has withdrawn into some inner citadel, he will probably discover that the enemy pursues him even there. Modern materialism, especially in the realm of psychology, is not content with occupying the lower quarters of the Christian city, but pushes its way into all the higher reaches of life; it is just as much opposed to the philosophical idealism of the liberal preacher as to the Biblical doctrines that the liberal preacher has abandoned in the interest of peace. Mere concessiveness, therefore, will never succeed in avoiding the liberal conflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no “peace without victory”; one side or the other must win.[1]
Today one of the debates brewing among Christian apologists is exactly what the outer defences are. It is my belief that this is an even worse place to be in than trying to answer liberal theologians. In the past few weeks the debate which has been brewing between Drs. Mike Licona, Norman L. Geisler, Al Mohler, et. al., - the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has come to the surface. After reading several blogs about the controversy and reading people’s comments it saddens me that some Christians are engaging in ad hominem attacks against one person or another and are not considering the primary and vital issue at stake – which is biblical inerrancy.
In the late 70’s and early 80’s the crisis of inerrancy came to a head and culminated in a document titled “The Chicago Statement.” In October of 1978 three hundred scholars, pastors, and laymen met together and read academic papers in support, clarification and defense of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The participants were from a broad theological spectrum; Anglican, Baptist, Free Church, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and others. The “Chicago Statement” contrary to what some people believe, is NOT just about Norman Geisler even though he played a key role. One of the papers was given by Dr. Paul Feinberg. In his paper titled “The Meaning of Inerrancy” Dr. Feinberg does an excellent job of carefully examining a proper, philosophically and theologically defensible definition of biblical inerrancy. In the final section of his paper Feinberg concludes by making some final observations, qualifications and misunderstandings – just in case his original thesis/argument was misunderstood. In the second observation Fienberg makes the point that “Inerrancy is a doctrine that must be asserted, but which may not be demonstrated with respect to all the phenomena of Scripture.”[2]
There is in this definition of inerrancy the explicit recognition of both the fallibility and the finiteness of the present state of human knowledge. There are really only these two choices: either the theologian will trust the word of an omnipotent, omniscient God, who says that He controlled human agents, making it necessary for the theologian to admit his fallibility as critic, or in some sense he will declare that the aforementioned control is restricted and will affirm at least his own relative finite omniscience as critic. Since Christ exhibited total trust in the Scriptures, can we do any less? All that is claimed is there is no final conflict with truth.[3]
Does the doctrine of inerrancy need to be redefined or re-evaluated today in light of a controversy over a biblical passage? I say no! For those who wish to redefine or re-hash inerrancy I say fine, gather your three hundred scholars and spend several years in academic meetings hammering it out. In the end, I believe that two positions will come to the surface - the same two, incidentally, that Feinberg wrote about thirty-three years ago. “Either the theologian will affirm that God is omniscient or that he - the theologian, is omniscient.”
Inerrancy is a vital part of evangelical Christianity. I would even go so far as to say that it is one of the essential outer defences. If we compromise on this doctrine and don’t defend it but certain theologians because of friendship, likability, or popularity, then we and our institutions will drift hard to the left, the same way Princeton University did, exactly as theologians like B.B. Warfield, G. Greshem Machen and others warned of in the 1920’s. Even Machen’s own Presbyterian church defrocked him in 1933 when he refused to remove himself from a group, which aligned itself against the liberal elements in the Presbyterian church. Machen went on to found what came to be known as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In the Great Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer, in commenting about Machen’s rift with his church, accurately commented that, “It was the culmination of a long trend toward liberalism within the Presbyterian Church and represented the same trend in most other denominations.”
Hegel lamented, “If there is anything we learn from history it is that we learn nothing from history.” Theologians and apologists are among those who don’t’ learn. We would do well to study the debates of the past decade and even centuries. Perhaps there is wisdom in studying the lessons of the past. Solomon was right, “there really is nothing new under the sun.”
Inerrancy has already been defined and defended by theologians of the past. It just needs to be adhered to. “Mere concessiveness, therefore, will never succeed in avoiding the liberal conflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no “peace without victory”; one side or the other must win.”[4]
If a theologian or biblical scholar doesn’t agree with inerrancy that is one thing. But let no one claim that they are holding to it – when it is clear that they are not.
No comments:
Post a Comment