Is God’s Word Inerrant? I don’t know but it’s an interesting question. I don’t have any issue with someone believing it is, or believing it’s not.

A friend of mine recently told me that in order to get a job with a ministry, he had to sign a statement of faith which included, among other things, the words, “All Scripture is the infallible word of God.” My friend was wrestling with some of the traditional elements of his faith and working through what it all means. He was pressed to sign it, yet at the same time acknowledging he wasn’t sure if he would be honest in signing it.

I get that.

Unfortunately the idea of inerrancy comes with a truck load of baggage.  We like to take the idea of inspired and then superimpose the idea of inerrant on top of that.  Scripture itself suggests the Bible is inspired.  This site has done a good job of culling all the passages that reinforce the idea. And I’m beginning to know my friend well enough that he wouldn’t question it’s inspiration.  Neither do I.  I  find it incredibly valuable.  The problem is that people then question the difference between inspired and inerrant.  This site did a good job of breaking down that argument.

The question for me is NOT whether Scripture in inerrant or infallible. I can’t prove it one way or another.  It seems like a labyrinth to me that can easily ensnare someone in it’s trap.  And what ends up happening is we get stuck on distinctions that then define the parameters of whether or not someone IS a christian. In other words, we have to believe in inerrancy/infallibility to BE a true Christian.

The question for me is then, “Is Scripture true?” And there’s a huge difference between the two. Infallibility is about perfection, and I’ve found (and you may have a different experience) that it’s largely about winning an argument.  True is different.  It’s largely about experience.  It’s about engaging the text and asking deeply profound questions about it’s legitimacy for life. Does it produce something of value? When I spent my time living in the space of infallibility, I felt like I had to defend my territory.  I was always managing the data that confronted the existing tensions in the Bible itself.  And it was somewhat maddening because the Bible “seems” flawed. There are tensions within the text.  Holding infallibility requires a strange tension.

But when I lived in the space of True, my framework changed.  I didn’t have to defend the idea anymore.  And this freed me up to focus on the actual story presented in the text.  It allowed me to see the story in a whole new way, one that liberated me from religion and into relationship.  It allowed me to begin experiencing what was true by engaging God in the midst of testing what is true.  Because I can’t really prove if Scripture is perfect, but I can’t live into the idea that all of creation has value.  I can’t live into the idea of taking up my cross.  I can live into the idea of practicing love.  And when I do, my experience of Scripture deepens.

Any thoughts to add?

From Bill Kinnon’s Confused by Calvinists…again.

——————————————————————–

“Isn’t it a little weird that TULIP-waving Calvinists get all bent out of shape about a book that denies the eternal flames of hell? (I should say “apparently denies” – haven’t read it and I doubt I ever will – I’m no fan of Charlie Bell or Rob Sheen or whatever his name is)?

One goes so far as to dramatically state,

…The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating.

If depravity is total.  If election is unconditional. If the atonement is limited (to whom it applies). If grace is irresistible. And the elect were predestined from the foundations of the earth.

Then.

How in hell can the impact of a book written by a “rock star” Christian minister ‘devastate souls’?

Doesn’t a TULIP-loving Calvinist believe that those whom God forechose and foreknew will be saved regardless? Or am I missing something in their theology?”

——————————————————————–

Dooooooooh!

Is grace true for an individual, from God’s perspective, if they haven’t consciously acknowledged it?

“It also strikes me that truth is never afraid of questions, and when questions are rendered off limits, it at least creates the impression that it is not truth that is being sought, but rather a maintaining of the status-quo.” Matthew Paul Turner, Orthodoxy vs. Heresy: A Power Game?

The dust up over Rob Bell’s new book is outstanding.  Lots of great dialog, even when it gets nasty.  We need these kinds of conversations.

To give you context, Jason Boyett gives a great summary of the conflict. I appreciate Jason’s comment when he says:

“There is no meaner, more hateful person on Earth than a Christian who suspects you have gotten your theology wrong.”

I have yet to receive my advanced review copy so I can’t really weigh in yet, but I will do so very quickly when it comes.

But after reading some of the comments, I was imagining an idea. Let’s assume Rob is a universalist.  He’s standing before God, ready to face the reality of what many call the final judgment. Yet he believes that God is big enough to restore all of reality and all of creation.  He’s not really a universalist in the traditional sense, that he believes God just ignores suffering and lets everyone off the hook.  He believes that the work of Jesus on the cross reveals the reality of grace for everyone, even when they don’t see it or accept it.  It’s true because God established grace before time.

In other words, he holds conflicting ideas that are not necessarily orthodox in today’s evangelical world.  He holds an emergent view of restoration but believes in the final judgment. He takes the risk to believe God will restore it all.

What will God do with him?  Is believing something that a specific community deems unorthodox or even heretical grounds for missing out on life?

What say you?

Been an interesting week and I appreciate all the dialogue you readers have provided.  Jeremy Bouma, has a couple of interesting posts lately exploring why he’s frustrated with the emerging church.  And in this post he said in response to Rob Bell’s theological framework.

“While it is true that humans cannot earn their salvation, it is not true that humans “have always had” it. Universal Salvation is not a condition into which humans are born. Universal Sin is the condition into which humans are born.”

What do you think?  Agree or disagree and why?

To understand this post you might need to review the previous two posts here and here.

I said: And with that I began to realize why people have so many theological disagreements. Our faith is in our interpretation of Scripture, as opposed to Jesus. As much as I love Scripture it’s Jesus once removed.

I find it interesting that Ken left out of his post what comes just after that statement.

“It is all we have, but it must always be interpreted. And once removed, it presents differences of opinion on what it says. And I’m not suggesting it has no value. It has immense value.”

Ken Silva responded with:

“Sounds very pious, “As much as I love Scripture it’s Jesus once removed”; however, it’s actually a subtle attack on Scripture pitting it against Jesus as if what we read in the Bible is somehow in conflict with what Jesus taught. What you need to know is this odd idea that somehow the Bible is lesser than Jesus is not new; and what it’s designed to do is open the door for such as these to circumvent God’s authority in favor of the autonomy of their own subjective experiences. That one can somehow have Jesus as opposed to obeying His inspired Word in Holy Scripture is impossible. Lord willing, I’ll cover this in more depth; but for now just consider what Jesus says below:

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)”

What do you think? Is what I said pitting Jesus against the Bible?

My previous post explored a comment Ken Silva made on my blog. It sparked a lot of interesting comments and conversations. And I will say that Ken is gracious when he’s around. A friend of mine teased me that all I need to do is mention Ken Silva, and my blog stats double. LOL! I really don’t have a dog in the fight on this one. I consider Ken a brother from another mother, and I’ve committed to presenting love, even when we don’t agree.

I reserved my comments simply to allow the space to open up for others to comment. And it’s been very interesting. But then I noticed something in Ken’s own words this morning. Ken stated:

“Well, since he asked; I think God has revealed of Himself what He wanted us to know about Him in His inerrant, infallible, Word i.e. Holy Scripture. Therefore, any theology that’s shaped by the Bible, in context and rightly interpreted, accurately represents the size of our infinite Creator God that He needs us to have of Him.”

And as I read that I thought, “If you just substitute Jesus for Scripture, I’m all in on that. It would read like this.

“Well, since he asked; I think God has revealed of Himself what He wanted us to know about Him in His inerrant, infallible, Son i.e. Jesus Christ. Therefore, any theology that’s shaped by Jesus accurately represents the size of our infinite Creator God that He needs us to have of Him.”

And with that I began to realize why people have so many theological disagreements. Our faith is in our interpretation of Scripture, as opposed to Jesus. As much as I love Scripture it’s Jesus once removed. It is all we have, but it must always be interpreted. And once removed, it presents differences of opinion on what it says. And I’m not suggesting it has no value. It has immense value.

I’ve said many times before that I have no real faith in my own logic, reasoning, experience, and understanding. I have faith in Jesus for me. That doesn’t mean I can’t hold a sense of logic, reason, experience, and understanding about God and Scripture. I just hold it very lightly.

Update: In light of this conversation, I found this image today, which makes me laugh.

Ken Silva wrote a post in response to my previous post here.  He said:

“Well, since he asked; I think God has revealed of Himself what He wanted us to know about Him in His inerrant, infallible, Word i.e. Holy Scripture. Therefore, any theology that’s shaped by the Bible, in context and rightly interpreted, accurately represents the size of our infinite Creator God that He needs us to have of Him.”

What do you think?

A reader asks an interesting question about the authority of Scripture over on Brian McLaren’s blog.

“Does the Bible have any authority at all, or is it merely a book like any other?”

The question intrigued me because I kind of think the reader is missing something about the nature of authority.  But before I share what I first want to ask, “How would you answer this question?”