The older I get, the more I appreciate Easter. When I was a kid, I remember I didn't like Easter much because I felt like, after Thanksgiving, you had all the crap of holidays without the good parts. For Easter you have to go to church, you have to get dressed up. Yeah, you got a basket with some candy and maybe a book or a kite, but you had to go and deal with all the extended family right after church. By the time you finally made it home from all the nonsense of Easter egg hunting, you had to just turn around and get ready for church again. Sure, it improved a bit when my great-uncle who hid tons of money in prize eggs showed up, and I usually found the most, but then I had to deal with the (temporary) guilt of swiping prize eggs from my sister or cousins.
But now, now I love Easter. Easter represents all that is hopeful in the Christian faith. I work with men every day who by all accounts threw their lives away. But now they have a new chance for a new life. Instead of living on the streets hooked on coke, they live in a converted hotel and are learning just how precious they are in God's eyes.
Easter represents a culmination of all that God has done and is doing in history. God showed through the bogus trial and unjust execution of his son just what he thinks of us. And it is good.
Easter remembers the day that Jesus rose from the grave and with his resurrection threw aside all the old shackles that had chained his beloved. Easter is the day that it is all about.
I am anticipating next Easter even more than usual, because next Easter we will finally have our little church going. The entire reason for moving here will be realized, but also just started. Robin and I miss being part of a church, but we know its temporary. I know for me, working nights and missing her and my funny dog, this present suffering is just part of the path to doing what God has called us to do. It is hard, but I know that in the end it will be worth it.
4.08.2009
3.29.2009
Becoming a vampire.
I have started myself on the journey to become a vampire. My employer offered me a promotion (sort of) to a night house manager. To be completely honest, the change didn't really appeal to me, but during the meeting when I was offered the promotion I was told that the VP of operations "had his eye on me" whatever that means. Now, hopefully it means that I'll be moving up to a chaplain type of position soon, a position for which I would be more suited and for which my (7 years) education would probably be more beneficial than my current job.
Its not that I am ungrateful for a promotion and pay-raise, that is great. But I hate working nights and having my schedule so different from my beautiful wife and our little puppy. So, I am hoping within a few months to move up again. The hard thing that I need to remember is that doing things like we are committed to doing are never easy.
Ministry in general is one of the most difficult professions, in my opinion. The reasons are varied, but I think they include things like:
1. Everyone with a pulse who has gone to church for more than a few years is a theologian, the problem is the quality of theology that they profess. Some have read all the "Left Behind" books so they think they know about the book of Revelation. Some have read John Piper so they think they know the pros and cons of God's sovereignty.It would be like me saying that since I listened to the classical radio station the other day, I know why Bach wasn't as good as Beethoven. I don't have a problem if someone wants to read those books, but the problem is that some people don't read both sides and think of themselves as experts.
2. How do you correct that crap?! I mean, its pretty hard to let people know that these prized thoughts about God that they have had since they were teenagers could be wrong. They could be right, but the problem is that you must look at both sides of an argument to be close to the right answer. Lots of people haven't done that, and then when the pastor or minister presents an alternative viewpoint, they shut down.
3. People are more committed to ideas than they are to relationships, in some ways. They don't really want to consider the fact that they could be wrong, they just want a large group that will tell them they are right and that the liberals are ruining the country, or the conservatives depending on the place. So, if a church presents an alternative that they don't like, they go to another church.
4. Everyone wants to tell you how to minister, no one wants to actually do it. Well, why do we pay the pastor if we have to do it?! Because you are the church.
5. To actually be the church we are called to be, everyone in the church has to be willing to make radical changes to himself or herself. And everyone must be willing to evaluate how he or she acts and treats those around him. Not an easy thing to do, but if we all did it our churches would be much better places.
I have a lot more, but I don't feel like beating the church down anymore than I already have. I am excited because I feel like we have a significant chance of changing these things at our church in Denver. We have people relocating 10-15 hours from home in order to follow God's leading. I don't think any of them would do that if they weren't open to changing themselves in significant ways. I know it has changed me to move and hope that God will provide.
Its not that I am ungrateful for a promotion and pay-raise, that is great. But I hate working nights and having my schedule so different from my beautiful wife and our little puppy. So, I am hoping within a few months to move up again. The hard thing that I need to remember is that doing things like we are committed to doing are never easy.
Ministry in general is one of the most difficult professions, in my opinion. The reasons are varied, but I think they include things like:
1. Everyone with a pulse who has gone to church for more than a few years is a theologian, the problem is the quality of theology that they profess. Some have read all the "Left Behind" books so they think they know about the book of Revelation. Some have read John Piper so they think they know the pros and cons of God's sovereignty.It would be like me saying that since I listened to the classical radio station the other day, I know why Bach wasn't as good as Beethoven. I don't have a problem if someone wants to read those books, but the problem is that some people don't read both sides and think of themselves as experts.
2. How do you correct that crap?! I mean, its pretty hard to let people know that these prized thoughts about God that they have had since they were teenagers could be wrong. They could be right, but the problem is that you must look at both sides of an argument to be close to the right answer. Lots of people haven't done that, and then when the pastor or minister presents an alternative viewpoint, they shut down.
3. People are more committed to ideas than they are to relationships, in some ways. They don't really want to consider the fact that they could be wrong, they just want a large group that will tell them they are right and that the liberals are ruining the country, or the conservatives depending on the place. So, if a church presents an alternative that they don't like, they go to another church.
4. Everyone wants to tell you how to minister, no one wants to actually do it. Well, why do we pay the pastor if we have to do it?! Because you are the church.
5. To actually be the church we are called to be, everyone in the church has to be willing to make radical changes to himself or herself. And everyone must be willing to evaluate how he or she acts and treats those around him. Not an easy thing to do, but if we all did it our churches would be much better places.
I have a lot more, but I don't feel like beating the church down anymore than I already have. I am excited because I feel like we have a significant chance of changing these things at our church in Denver. We have people relocating 10-15 hours from home in order to follow God's leading. I don't think any of them would do that if they weren't open to changing themselves in significant ways. I know it has changed me to move and hope that God will provide.
3.23.2009
Rufus. The dog.
I have spent the last month and a half training this crazy dog we got. They told us he is Irish Setter and Husky mix, but really he doesn't look like either. We think he may be German Shepherd, Husky and Lab mixed. One third of each... jk.
So we have a few tricks he is getting pretty good at. He knows how to go to his crate when we say "crate time." He knows he better make his way to me if I tell him to "come," he knows to park it when I say "sit" and go the rest of the way when I tell him to "lay down." The jury is out on whether he knows what I mean when I say "stay." But the fact is he does stay for a little bit, so maybe he does. I want to teach him to bring me an old tshirt of mine when I say "Chemistry power" because that is what the shirt says. I want to work on playing dead, roll over and fetch.
He was pretty easy to house train, but getting him to like that crate was such a pain. He howled and barely let us sleep those first couple nights. It was a battle of wills. We almost lost, but thankfully we prevailed over a sick, almost 4 month old puppy. No insight in this post, just a little web-journal this time around. Maybe I'll feel like posting controversy soon...
So we have a few tricks he is getting pretty good at. He knows how to go to his crate when we say "crate time." He knows he better make his way to me if I tell him to "come," he knows to park it when I say "sit" and go the rest of the way when I tell him to "lay down." The jury is out on whether he knows what I mean when I say "stay." But the fact is he does stay for a little bit, so maybe he does. I want to teach him to bring me an old tshirt of mine when I say "Chemistry power" because that is what the shirt says. I want to work on playing dead, roll over and fetch.
He was pretty easy to house train, but getting him to like that crate was such a pain. He howled and barely let us sleep those first couple nights. It was a battle of wills. We almost lost, but thankfully we prevailed over a sick, almost 4 month old puppy. No insight in this post, just a little web-journal this time around. Maybe I'll feel like posting controversy soon...
3.10.2009
Things I will never do...
To be honest, I haven't felt like blogging in awhile. I haven't felt particularly inspired, mostly because we have just gotten a dog and he keeps me busy. However, when I was driving around with a very annoying coworker today, I thought about making a list of things I never plan on doing, unless forced with a threat on my life. So here we go:
1. Listen to KLOVE alone or on purpose.
2. Wear a pink polo or tshirt.
3. Become a Calvinist.
4. Say "Git 'er done" unless I am mocking someone.
5. Put a "No Fear" or "Fear this" decal on my automobile.
6. Buy a Dodge.
7. Watch "the Gilmore Girls."
8. Do the way of the master.
9. Call myself "a Jesus Freak."
10. Eat mushrooms.
11. Shop at Abercrombie.
12. Say the pledge of allegiance or put my hand over my heart while the National Anthem is playing.
Probably will add more later.
1. Listen to KLOVE alone or on purpose.
2. Wear a pink polo or tshirt.
3. Become a Calvinist.
4. Say "Git 'er done" unless I am mocking someone.
5. Put a "No Fear" or "Fear this" decal on my automobile.
6. Buy a Dodge.
7. Watch "the Gilmore Girls."
8. Do the way of the master.
9. Call myself "a Jesus Freak."
10. Eat mushrooms.
11. Shop at Abercrombie.
12. Say the pledge of allegiance or put my hand over my heart while the National Anthem is playing.
Probably will add more later.
1.25.2009
Who will be saved?
Since I'm just kind of jumping around anyway, I thought this might be an interesting topic. There are two basic camps for this basic question of "who will be saved?" Although, truth be told there are probably as many different nuances as there are people. The two basic camps are the following 1. God determines who will be saved before the creation of the world and 2. People are allowed to choose whether they will accept God's salvation or not.
Now, those may be the two basic groups, but there are a lot of other groups as well. Some would say that the only way a person can be saved is if they call explicitly on the name of Jesus Christ and admit that he is the only way to salvation. Some would disagree and say that if someone has never heard of Jesus Christ, but honestly and sincerely seeks the "creator God" and trusts him for her salvation, then she will be saved. Then some would say that God's grace will be given to all in the same way that Adam's sin was attributed to all.
Pretty much everyone who falls into the first group, will also advocate the exclusiveness view, and the universal view. If God has ordained who will be saved, then he has also ordained who will hear the gospel. Or he would have ordained that it didn't matter who hears the gospel, he will unilaterally save them anyway. There are scriptures that seem to support all of this.
However, I believe that the overall witness of the scripture supports view #2 and the view that God can forgive someone for not having the opportunity to hear of his providence. I think the ultimate revelation of who God is is in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus makes it pretty clear that the main issue for following him is commitment, not knowledge. Otherwise Peter would have been disqualified quite a bit, as well as every other disciple. This does not mean that disciples should give up on orthodoxy, but as they will not truly achieve it, it is not requisite to be saved.
In addition, the scriptures that indicate that God desires all to be saved stand in direct opposition to the belief that God has chosen who will be saved and who won't. In addition, the life of Jesus himself flies directly in the face of all that. Jesus was not selective about who could know him and who couldn't.
Obviously there is tons of disagreement on this. There are volumes upon volumes on each side of the aisle. I think the main thing is that I cannot honestly conceive of Jesus choosing some to be sent to heaven and some to be sent to hell. Some can, but to steal a line from Dr. Olson, "I have a hard time distinguishing between God and the devil if God chooses some for eternal punishment."
Now, those may be the two basic groups, but there are a lot of other groups as well. Some would say that the only way a person can be saved is if they call explicitly on the name of Jesus Christ and admit that he is the only way to salvation. Some would disagree and say that if someone has never heard of Jesus Christ, but honestly and sincerely seeks the "creator God" and trusts him for her salvation, then she will be saved. Then some would say that God's grace will be given to all in the same way that Adam's sin was attributed to all.
Pretty much everyone who falls into the first group, will also advocate the exclusiveness view, and the universal view. If God has ordained who will be saved, then he has also ordained who will hear the gospel. Or he would have ordained that it didn't matter who hears the gospel, he will unilaterally save them anyway. There are scriptures that seem to support all of this.
However, I believe that the overall witness of the scripture supports view #2 and the view that God can forgive someone for not having the opportunity to hear of his providence. I think the ultimate revelation of who God is is in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus makes it pretty clear that the main issue for following him is commitment, not knowledge. Otherwise Peter would have been disqualified quite a bit, as well as every other disciple. This does not mean that disciples should give up on orthodoxy, but as they will not truly achieve it, it is not requisite to be saved.
In addition, the scriptures that indicate that God desires all to be saved stand in direct opposition to the belief that God has chosen who will be saved and who won't. In addition, the life of Jesus himself flies directly in the face of all that. Jesus was not selective about who could know him and who couldn't.
Obviously there is tons of disagreement on this. There are volumes upon volumes on each side of the aisle. I think the main thing is that I cannot honestly conceive of Jesus choosing some to be sent to heaven and some to be sent to hell. Some can, but to steal a line from Dr. Olson, "I have a hard time distinguishing between God and the devil if God chooses some for eternal punishment."
1.18.2009
Omniscience and Omnipotence
I wanted to do a few on what I think about scripture, the bible, etc, but if I wanted to be stuck doing that for long blocks of time I would try to write a book (which I would like to do, but I would also like to win the lottery, so you know...). Anyway, I dunno if it was a request to discuss these two loaded words or just a thought about something that we might overlook a lot, but I think those two words are very worth discussing.
Oftentimes in our churches in the twentieth and now twenty-first century we often ascribe to God the qualities of being both omniscient and omnipotent. The problem with that, is that neither word is found in our scriptures. Sure, the basics of the ideas may be there, but not as clearly as many would like us to believe. So again, this is mostly a place for me to think my thoughts through and a place to get some feedback from friends and internet theologians. Feel free to contribute. Or not.
Omniscience: The general idea here is that God knows everything. The typical belief within Christianity, at least in American Christianity as I can't speak for the rest of the world, is that God knows everything including what will happen, what could happen, and what would happen. I think that if we are going to call God "omniscient" we need to nuance that word a little bit. The problem is that we are ascribing to God something that he does not really make clear in the scriptures he has given us.
Let me explain. First of all, I don't think God knows things that are not true. Second I don't think that God knows exactly what a free-agent will do in a general circumstance. Let me put it this way, God does not know the DNA of a unicorn. He cannot know it. There is no such thing, so there is no reason for God to know it. God only knows fact. God does not lie and there is no lie in him. God can know the lie that someone tells, and if someone wrote a book describing the DNA of a unicorn, God could know that too, but that does not mean that God would know the actual DNA of a unicorn, just the speculative one. I dunno if that makes any sense, but it did in my head.
Second, in the same way, I don't think it is possible to know what free creatures will do before they have chosen it. If we are truly free to do either A or B, then I think it would be impossible for God to know. He may know which is more likely, but I don't think he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are some exceptions. I think God does sometimes take away our free will and force us to decide certain things. I think he never does this in the case of salvation, meaning, I think God always allows us to chose our eternal destiny. But I do think if God wants me to go to Arby's tomorrow, God will make me go to Arby's tomorrow. There are tons of places in scripture that seem to indicate that God does not know how a people will choose, when God changes his mind, or God hoped something would happen but it did not. There are other places that seem to disagree. A person must give priority to one or the other, then interpret the one he or she didn't choose in light of the one with priority.
So I think God knows everything that is possible to know, but God does not know those things that are impossible. (Cue the Calvinist argument that I am putting God in a box)
Omnipotence: We also often have a difficult time understanding this word. In principle, I agree that God is omnipotent. God is all-powerful. I think God can do anything he wants to do (so long as it is possible). But that is all too often taken to mean that God is the ultimate micro-manager. God has decreed when I will die, when I will eat next, even when this blog will end. That is not, however, the God that you find in the bible. God allows people to have choice, to do meaningful things, to matter.
So, since this blog is too long as it is, I will stop for today by saying that God could micro-manage in that way, the scripture seems pretty clear that God does not. God is both omnipotent and omniscient, just not in the way all too many people ascribe to him.
Oftentimes in our churches in the twentieth and now twenty-first century we often ascribe to God the qualities of being both omniscient and omnipotent. The problem with that, is that neither word is found in our scriptures. Sure, the basics of the ideas may be there, but not as clearly as many would like us to believe. So again, this is mostly a place for me to think my thoughts through and a place to get some feedback from friends and internet theologians. Feel free to contribute. Or not.
Omniscience: The general idea here is that God knows everything. The typical belief within Christianity, at least in American Christianity as I can't speak for the rest of the world, is that God knows everything including what will happen, what could happen, and what would happen. I think that if we are going to call God "omniscient" we need to nuance that word a little bit. The problem is that we are ascribing to God something that he does not really make clear in the scriptures he has given us.
Let me explain. First of all, I don't think God knows things that are not true. Second I don't think that God knows exactly what a free-agent will do in a general circumstance. Let me put it this way, God does not know the DNA of a unicorn. He cannot know it. There is no such thing, so there is no reason for God to know it. God only knows fact. God does not lie and there is no lie in him. God can know the lie that someone tells, and if someone wrote a book describing the DNA of a unicorn, God could know that too, but that does not mean that God would know the actual DNA of a unicorn, just the speculative one. I dunno if that makes any sense, but it did in my head.
Second, in the same way, I don't think it is possible to know what free creatures will do before they have chosen it. If we are truly free to do either A or B, then I think it would be impossible for God to know. He may know which is more likely, but I don't think he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are some exceptions. I think God does sometimes take away our free will and force us to decide certain things. I think he never does this in the case of salvation, meaning, I think God always allows us to chose our eternal destiny. But I do think if God wants me to go to Arby's tomorrow, God will make me go to Arby's tomorrow. There are tons of places in scripture that seem to indicate that God does not know how a people will choose, when God changes his mind, or God hoped something would happen but it did not. There are other places that seem to disagree. A person must give priority to one or the other, then interpret the one he or she didn't choose in light of the one with priority.
So I think God knows everything that is possible to know, but God does not know those things that are impossible. (Cue the Calvinist argument that I am putting God in a box)
Omnipotence: We also often have a difficult time understanding this word. In principle, I agree that God is omnipotent. God is all-powerful. I think God can do anything he wants to do (so long as it is possible). But that is all too often taken to mean that God is the ultimate micro-manager. God has decreed when I will die, when I will eat next, even when this blog will end. That is not, however, the God that you find in the bible. God allows people to have choice, to do meaningful things, to matter.
So, since this blog is too long as it is, I will stop for today by saying that God could micro-manage in that way, the scripture seems pretty clear that God does not. God is both omnipotent and omniscient, just not in the way all too many people ascribe to him.
12.24.2008
Scripture: Inerrancy
As I am trying to think about what I want to say about scripture, I am realizing this may have to be a three or four post process. There is little in the Christian bubble of our world that causes more strife and contention than the nature of scripture, and I guess I understand, it is a pretty important topic.
I guess the place I have to start is by saying what I think scripture is not. There is a word that gets thrown around a lot today that is no where in scripture and in my opinion is supported no where in scripture and that word is "inerrant." People divide over this word and some are labeled as "heretics" because they reject this word. Well I guess I should be labeled the same.
There are several different reasons that I don't buy inerrancy, but I think its important to first discuss what people mean when they claim the bible is inerrant. The opinions on inerrancy are anything but unanimous. Some would say the bible is inerrant because the original manuscripts (the first handwritten texts by the authors) were inerrant, every word, jot and scribble was exactly as God intended and perfect in fact and message. However, over time there were copying errors and pieces lost and added etc, and so since we no longer have any of the original manuscripts, we no longer have it exactly as it was. However, the message is still innerant according to most of those.
Then there are some, albeit probably many fewer and less well-read, that would say that every word and punctuation of today's bibles are exactly as God intended. Some would even go so far as to say that the King James Bible is the only Bible, but I guess no one could read the real Bible before the 1600s...
All that to say, there is some disagreement as to what exactly "innerant" means. However, I would say the majority of Christians in the United States cling tightly to that word. I have some ideas why, but I think that is a discussion for another post. I should probably just say what I think about it and why as quickly as possible and expand on that some later.
Probably my biggest issue with inerrancy is this: God has shown a pattern of working through and with weak people. God has shown a propensity to entrust his treasure to jars of clay. The only place I see God using a perfect agent to get his message to the world, was in the person of Jesus Christ (who is called the word in John 1, and I think he should be understood primarily as "the word" rather than scripture). God shows his greatness by having relationship with flawed people in a flawed world with flawed ideas.
Do I think God could have written a perfect book filled with stories about his relationships with people? Yes. He could have. But do I think he did? Not at all. If it was important to God that scripture be inerrant, if it was so important that his words to people contained no error so much so that he verbally dictated to humans what he wanted written, where he wanted punctuation etc, that he wrote an "inerrant" scripture to begin with, then he would clearly be capable of preserving it in its inerrant state. But the scripture we have in Greek and Hebrew is full of typos and discrepancies, we have a multitude of texts, some very different. I think God is more than capable of preserving a perfect, inerrant text if he wanted to, but since he obviously didn't, then I have to conclude that God thinks people can be saved without an inerrant scripture. Am I missing something?!
Further, the other mistake I believe people make is thinking that the bible is just one big book. It is anything but. There are 66 books in our bible, but those books could have been written at countless times (and I mean countless when you think that Isaiah was probably written in three parts, the Chronicles and Kings were probably compiled over generations, Genesis has four major sources, not to mention the Psalms have 150 chapters, and Psalm 119 could have several authors on its own...) so to think that these books are all homogenous in some way is pretty shortsighted to me. That doesn't even mention all the books that were left out of the canon, but were fairly close to making it in... which I guess I should write about canon at some point...
So, sure there are places in the bible that say things like "all scripture is God breathed" but to pretend that that pertains to all of our bible is borderline dishonest. One of the most basic rules of hermenuetics (bible study) is that a verse means first and foremost what it meant to its original hearers. The early Christians would not have considered Paul's epistles, the gospels and Revelation to be "scripture" yet. They would have considered "scripture" to be the Old Testament. So while we can affirm today that the New Testament is "God breathed" that wouldn't likely have been the original intent. And even then, does that mean that scripture is inerrant? I think not. Not because of any error by God, but because God chose to use fallible humans to be his medium. God worked through people and those people make errors.
Let me say it like this. Say my boss at work says to me, "Chris, we need you to run downtown and get the skid of bananas and take it to the Crossing," and then I turn around and say "Craig, we need to go to DRML and get the bananas and take it to Holly street." I got the same message across, but didn't repeat it exactly as my boss said. That doesn't mean the message is wrong, but it does mean that I didn't convey my boss said without error. He used different words. I think the bible we have today contains God's message for humans. I think it is full of mistakes and errors and some of the historical facts may not be accurate. But I don't think God is all that worried about all that (again, if he was, he would have seen to it that it was preservered without error). I think God is concerned that his basic message gets across. Go pick up the bananas and take them somewhere else. We can get that message even if Noah was only in a boat for 39 days or something like that.
I realize this is woefully incomplete, but I am going to add on to these thoughts and keep this general topic going for awhile. I may have said something in a way I didn't intend, forgive me, correct me, whatever, but I think this is an extremely important topic to consider and mull over. Again, I am probably wrong about a lot of things I think, I just don't know which I'm wrong about and which I'm not. What do you think about inerrancy?
I guess the place I have to start is by saying what I think scripture is not. There is a word that gets thrown around a lot today that is no where in scripture and in my opinion is supported no where in scripture and that word is "inerrant." People divide over this word and some are labeled as "heretics" because they reject this word. Well I guess I should be labeled the same.
There are several different reasons that I don't buy inerrancy, but I think its important to first discuss what people mean when they claim the bible is inerrant. The opinions on inerrancy are anything but unanimous. Some would say the bible is inerrant because the original manuscripts (the first handwritten texts by the authors) were inerrant, every word, jot and scribble was exactly as God intended and perfect in fact and message. However, over time there were copying errors and pieces lost and added etc, and so since we no longer have any of the original manuscripts, we no longer have it exactly as it was. However, the message is still innerant according to most of those.
Then there are some, albeit probably many fewer and less well-read, that would say that every word and punctuation of today's bibles are exactly as God intended. Some would even go so far as to say that the King James Bible is the only Bible, but I guess no one could read the real Bible before the 1600s...
All that to say, there is some disagreement as to what exactly "innerant" means. However, I would say the majority of Christians in the United States cling tightly to that word. I have some ideas why, but I think that is a discussion for another post. I should probably just say what I think about it and why as quickly as possible and expand on that some later.
Probably my biggest issue with inerrancy is this: God has shown a pattern of working through and with weak people. God has shown a propensity to entrust his treasure to jars of clay. The only place I see God using a perfect agent to get his message to the world, was in the person of Jesus Christ (who is called the word in John 1, and I think he should be understood primarily as "the word" rather than scripture). God shows his greatness by having relationship with flawed people in a flawed world with flawed ideas.
Do I think God could have written a perfect book filled with stories about his relationships with people? Yes. He could have. But do I think he did? Not at all. If it was important to God that scripture be inerrant, if it was so important that his words to people contained no error so much so that he verbally dictated to humans what he wanted written, where he wanted punctuation etc, that he wrote an "inerrant" scripture to begin with, then he would clearly be capable of preserving it in its inerrant state. But the scripture we have in Greek and Hebrew is full of typos and discrepancies, we have a multitude of texts, some very different. I think God is more than capable of preserving a perfect, inerrant text if he wanted to, but since he obviously didn't, then I have to conclude that God thinks people can be saved without an inerrant scripture. Am I missing something?!
Further, the other mistake I believe people make is thinking that the bible is just one big book. It is anything but. There are 66 books in our bible, but those books could have been written at countless times (and I mean countless when you think that Isaiah was probably written in three parts, the Chronicles and Kings were probably compiled over generations, Genesis has four major sources, not to mention the Psalms have 150 chapters, and Psalm 119 could have several authors on its own...) so to think that these books are all homogenous in some way is pretty shortsighted to me. That doesn't even mention all the books that were left out of the canon, but were fairly close to making it in... which I guess I should write about canon at some point...
So, sure there are places in the bible that say things like "all scripture is God breathed" but to pretend that that pertains to all of our bible is borderline dishonest. One of the most basic rules of hermenuetics (bible study) is that a verse means first and foremost what it meant to its original hearers. The early Christians would not have considered Paul's epistles, the gospels and Revelation to be "scripture" yet. They would have considered "scripture" to be the Old Testament. So while we can affirm today that the New Testament is "God breathed" that wouldn't likely have been the original intent. And even then, does that mean that scripture is inerrant? I think not. Not because of any error by God, but because God chose to use fallible humans to be his medium. God worked through people and those people make errors.
Let me say it like this. Say my boss at work says to me, "Chris, we need you to run downtown and get the skid of bananas and take it to the Crossing," and then I turn around and say "Craig, we need to go to DRML and get the bananas and take it to Holly street." I got the same message across, but didn't repeat it exactly as my boss said. That doesn't mean the message is wrong, but it does mean that I didn't convey my boss said without error. He used different words. I think the bible we have today contains God's message for humans. I think it is full of mistakes and errors and some of the historical facts may not be accurate. But I don't think God is all that worried about all that (again, if he was, he would have seen to it that it was preservered without error). I think God is concerned that his basic message gets across. Go pick up the bananas and take them somewhere else. We can get that message even if Noah was only in a boat for 39 days or something like that.
I realize this is woefully incomplete, but I am going to add on to these thoughts and keep this general topic going for awhile. I may have said something in a way I didn't intend, forgive me, correct me, whatever, but I think this is an extremely important topic to consider and mull over. Again, I am probably wrong about a lot of things I think, I just don't know which I'm wrong about and which I'm not. What do you think about inerrancy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
