two or three . net

What is the Evangelical position on Biblical Inerrancy?

I was recently in a discussion at the skeptic site NW Ohio Skeptics, and got into a discussion about the differences between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, and one topic that came up is that of inerrancy.  While I think all Fundamentalists hold to a plenary inerrancy, I don't think that that position is the only one among evangelicals.

First check out Daniel Wallace's great essay My Take on Inerrancy.

Then, check out the diagram I made comparing the different types of Christianity and their stands on different doctrines, including inerrancy - Neo-fundy Doctrines?

Now, you are ready to read my explanation of how I view inerrancy, and how I think many Evangelicals view it - but I bet there is a bit of diversity on this topic in Evangelicailsm.

The parallel between 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and the Ten Commandments

I just purchased the Leader's version of Logos Software 4, and wow!  I am learning like crazy without even trying.  Just trying it out, I searched on the term 'homosexual' and a bunch of references came up, including one that mentions 1 Timothy 1:9-10, one of the three New Testament passages that refers to homosexuality directly:

1 Timothy 1:9-10 (English Standard Version)

Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.

One commentary mentioned that this passage tracks closely with the Ten Commandments.  I took a look, and here's the parallels.  I kept the order the same, and you can see how they roughly line up:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me > the lawless and disobedient
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image > the ungodly and sinners
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain > the profane
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy > the unholy
5. Honour thy father and thy mother > those who strike their fathers and mothers
6. Thou shalt not kill > murderers
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery > the sexually immoral, homosexuals
8. Thou shalt not steal > enslavers
9. Thou shalt not bear false withess against thy neighbor > liars, perjurers
10. Thou shalt not covet > whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.

What do you think?

Theological Liberalism as measured by your doctrine of Hell

Al Mohler has suggested that we can use a church or individual's theology of hell as a measure of their theological liberalism.  He also mentions that there is a characteristic 'slide' from the orthodox (read 'biblical') view of hell to the liberal view that abhors the idea as cruel and unjust (odium theologium).   Here you go.

1. Orthodox Belief: You believe in and preach the doctrine of Hell
2. Silence: You stop mentioning it because you find it offensive
3. Reduction to Consequentialism: A doctrine is revised and retained in reduced form - something like consequentialism, as opposed retributionism (God is actively punishing evil)
4. Positivism: Essentially, don't worry about it, we're not even sure if hell is real or what it means.  Just be as positive as possible - focus on being a good person and hell will take care of itself.
5. Liberalization of the Doctrine:  Changing the doctrine from eternal to denying that hell is everlasting, arguing for a form of annihilationism, or conditional immortality.
6. Denial of Biblical Accuracy:  Basically, yes the Bible teaches eternal Hell, but the Bible is wrong. 

Did God create evil?

This video is actually much theologically deeper than one might assume.  When Christian theologians try to solve the problem of evil (), this is, I think one of the best (but no tonly) argument.  God did not CREATE evil, because evil is not a thing, but the ABSENCE of something - that is, the absence of good.

First religious freedom statement written in English

Who wrote the first English statement declaring that the king or any governmental leader had no authority over the religious or non-religious convictions of the people under their rule?

The problem of evil? Privatio boni

One of the most vexing problems confronting the idea of a loving God is the existence of evil.  Did God create evil, since he is supposed to have created everything?  The doctrine of privatio boni (Latin: 'the privation of good') discusses how evil is not the presence of something bad, but an absence of good - not something created, but something taken away, and therefore, God did not create evil.

The theological belief about the existence of evil normally associated with St. Augustine. In this belief, evil is not an entity or a substance, but the (de)privation of a substance, namely goodness or righteousness. Therefore, God did not create evil since evil is not an actual “thing.” As darkness has no substance in itself but is a privation of light, so also evil is a privation of righteousness. God allowed for this privation in his allowance for freedom.

Irrational beliefs - whose got 'em?

With the embrace of miracles, evangelical Christianity is deemed irrational by many. The supernatural elements present provide a stumbling block to some who in turn find a home in a Christianity with more liberal theological leanings or with an complete rejection of the faith whatsoever.

A recent study finds that while people may leave miracles and conservative Christianity behind, they don't always leave supernatural beliefs or at least those outside of evangelicalism are not immune to embracing seemingly irrational beliefs.

Spinoza's problem of evil

Spinoza's concept of God seems to offer a rationalists dream, particularly since Einstein seemed to endorse the idea, however it raises more logical consequences than would seem to be present at first blush.

Texas church raises ire with woman preacher

This past weekend, the Irving Bible Church had a woman preaching in its pulpit for the first time.  Now, in a liberal congregation, that would be no big deal - I mean, the Episcopal Church has ordained a gay Bishop, for God's sake (or so they presume).  Is this a sign of progress, or dissipation into the culture's lack of biblical norms for gender and sexuality?  Will this pave the way to accepting homosexuality and adultery?

The elders of IBC (all male) researched and debated the issue for 18 months before coming to their position, and issued a 24 page Position Paper on Women in Ministry.

Evangelical Manifesto Released

Today at the National Press Club, a group of 80 Christian leaders signed on and released An Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment.  Justin Taylor wrote a summary, and Joe at EO also commented.  I agree with Joe on this point:

It is not the term "evangelical" that the world despises but the beliefs behind the word. Call yourself whatever you want--'post-evangelical' is my favorite--but the minute you tell the world that homosexual behavior is sinful, that killing infants in the womb is wrong, and that man has an inherent dignity because we are made in the image of God then you can expect to have that label spat upon too.

How many labels are will willing to abandon before we finally realize it is our identity that we are shirking?

Me for one, I'm proud to wear the label.

What does forgiveness mean

Recently, I have been bombarded by the concept of forgiveness. Last night, I was flipping through the channels and absolutely nothing was on television. Not having cable, but having HDTV, I found myself over on the HD channels of PBS. One was showing a documentary on forgiveness, which grabbed my attention.

Suffering: who to blame?

Recently scholars NT Wright and Bart Ehrman debated one of the great theological questions of all-time - the existence of suffering balanced with the existence of God. Many have left the Christian faith, including Ehrman, because they could not reconcile the suffering in this world with a God who loved us.

David Kuo, who I don't always agree with, but find intriguing, offers an interesting take on the idea of suffering and who actually is to blame.

Capital punishment and rape - the bible says NO?

Joe over at the Evangelical Outpost has a nice post on the biblical view of capital punishment.  In it are two ideas that I had not previously considered, but I like Joe's take on it.

2008 Masters Seminary Faculty Lecture Series - Homosexuality

Each year at the seminary founded and chaired by John MacArthur has a faculty lecture series.  This year, the series is entitled The Truth About Homosexuality.  Here's the audio of those lectures:

• Dr. John MacArthur: "The Bible on Sexuality and Homosexuality"
• Dr. Michael Grisanti: "Cultural and Medical Myths about Homosexuality"
• Dr. Irv Busenitz: "Marriage and Homosexuality"
• Dr. Rick Holland: "Parenting and Homosexuality"
• Professor Alex Montoya: "The Church's Biblical Response to Homosexuals"

Related Posts:

• The Wrath of God II - How God abandons a nation
• Does Romans 1 Condemn Homosexuality?
• Debate:  Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?

Obama is now the victim of a bigger stink - black liberation theology exposed

Joe Carter at the EO has a really great, detailed post on Rev. Jeremiah Wright's real problem - and by extension, Obama's problem - the fact that Black Liberation theology has it's roots in hateful racism and biblical heresy.  And although Obama is not racist, it is too late to save his candidacy - he should have had the judgment to get out years ago, and the fact that he did not is troubling.  His speech today, though pretty good, was still tepid, and too little too late.  So long Obama, we barely knew ye.  Select quotes from Joe's post below.

Does God exist?

List Universe opened up comments on the question, Does God exist?  As you might imagine, much of what came out was fruitless haranguing, but it did provide a very useful list of links provided by unbelievers and believers as to why they do or don't believe.  Good for us apologists to consider and study.

• Apatheism
• Big List of Gods
• God is a concept, by which we mesure our pain
• God is imaginary
• Iron Chariots, the counter-apologetics wiki
• St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways
• Why won't God heal Amputees?
  
• YouTube videos
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....playnext=1
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....mp;index=1
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....mp;index=2

Hypocrites, virgins, and sinners: what issues do you oppose?

Recently, I was accused of choosing a stance on an issue because I was favoring my own situation.  Specifically, since I have married a formerly illegal immigrant Mexican, my moderate stance on immigration (which is different from my more conservative positions on most issues) was questioned, and I was accused of making my stance based on convenience, not conservative conviction.

Such an accusation, if taken seriously and without being defensive, forces one to examine the reasons WHY they take stances, and how those stances compare to one's current habits, as well as one's history.  And how our stances, compared to our history and current practices determines whether we are hypocrites, virgins, or sinners.

Bart's Problem: why do we suffer?

This past week on the radio interview show Fresh Air with Terry Gross, evangelical-scholar-turned-agnostic Bart Erhman talked about his new book, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer.  Bart's rejection of Christianity and the reliability of scripture is threatening and upsetting to many Christians, since he is way more knowledgable on the Bible than most of us will ever be, and he was schooled at all of the best evangelical schools, including Moody Bible Institute.  But Bad Bart had some interesting things to say.

Global Warming: threat, deception, or cloak for the antichrist?

Many evangelicals have joined the chorus in support of reducing greenhouse emissions, but I am still on the fence about global warming. Like Bill O'Reilly, think we should get off of fossil fuels for both environmental and economic/political reasons, but I have not bought into the Global Warming Panic (GWP).

As Aaron recently noted, this past year's hurricane season failed to meet the dire predictions of the GWP lobby - and while that may be too small a sample to be conclusive, it does show the speculative nature of the whole apocalyptic approach of the GWPers.

We've argued whether or not GW is a threat, or a hoax perpetrated by misinformed environmentalists.  But there's one more unusual perspective - that global warming, whether man-made or not, will be the worldwide catastrophe that unites the world in one cause, and under one world leader - the antichrist.

Uneasy Neighbors - Church and State

Discussions of what the bible says about Christianity and government often come up, and one book I oft refer to is Pilgrim's  Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament.  Pilgrim writes that there are actually at least three distinct New Testament doctrines governing the Christian approach to government, not just one simplistic "all or nothing" approach (i.e. theocracy or secularism); submissive confidence, deep resistance, and critical distancing.

In addition to these views, he also outlines the biblical responsibilities of civil government.

Quote of the Day #003 - Luther and "Vile Dirt"

"Your book is, in my opinion, so contemptible and worthless that I feel great pity for you for having defiled your beautiful and skilled manner of speaking  with such vile dirt....To those who have drunk from the Spirit of the teaching of my books, we have given in abundance and more than enough, and they easily despise your arguments....Hence, you see, I lost all desire to answer you, not because I was busy, or because it would have been a difficult task, nor on account of your great eloquence, nor for fear of you, but simply because of disgust, indignation and contempt, which, if I say so, express my judgment of your diatribe."

- Luther, responding to Erasmus' Freedom of the Will, in his counter-argument, The Bondage of the Will.

Quote of the Day #002 - Love the sinner?

"Love the sinner, hate the sin." - Ghandi (+ Augustine + ???)

This aphorism is probably a mix of two well known quotes:

• "Hate the sin and not the sinner" (Mohandas Gandhi's 1929 autobiography)
• St. Augustine's letter 211 (c. 424) contains the phrase Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum, which translates roughly as "With love for mankind and hatred of sins."

10 Biblical Points about Alcohol and Drinking

Many evangelicals and fundamentalists are tea-totalers, and a good number of them also look down upon Christians who do use alcohol.  And while such judgmental Christians are disobeying the command of Romans 14:3 to "not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him," this does not mean that they are wrong to abstain.

But the question arises, is the biblical perspective on alcohol entirely or mostly negative, or the opposite?

Perspicuity and single meaning of scripture

From my hermeneutics class:

Q: How is the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture related to the Hermeneutic principle of single meaning?

My Answer: The principle of single meaning simplifies the task of the biblical interpreter by narrowing possible interpretations to one, and in so doing, lends itself towards agreement on the public understanding of the objective meaning of scripture.  This, in turn, means that we can more clearly proclaim with assurance the perspicuity of scripture.  However, single meaning is not a prerequisite for perspicuity, and perspicuity can be declared, though perhaps with less assurance, even if we do not hold to single meaning.

Why are the scriptures not written more plainly?

As part of my hermeneutics class, we must read some of the works of John Owen (1616–1683), one of the greatest (and often least known) Protestant theologians of history, and by many accounts, the greatest that England has ever produced.  In this week's reading from Pneumatologia, we read Owen's thoughts on illumination (the role of the Spirit of God in helping us understand scripture) and perspicuity (the understandableness of scripture and it's message).  One of the questions he answers is, if God wanted us to understand Him, why are the scriptures not written in a more didactic fashion? 

How sure can we be of our spiritual convictions?

In my discussions with fellow classmates on the subject of hermeneutics, I have upset some apple carts by saying that we can't be cock sure of every doctrine, and as I explained in my previous post on hermeneutics, there are good reasons why we should question our convictions.

One classmate wrote that I was promoting a hopeless view, and that I was essentially saying that we can't really know anything for sure.  My response is below.

Why hermeneutics matters

The following is an essay response I did for my hermeneutics class at Veritas Theological Seminary. 

"A person's view of the Bible and how they seek to understand it will ultimately and inevitably determine their doctrine and their practice."

Do you agree or disagree? Explain your answer...

Eight Types of Suffering

CT has a nice article entitled Reductionist Justice, in which the author discusses the error of Job's friends, which was to reduce all suffering to God's retributive justice for sin.  As the author notes, there are at least eight types of suffering described in the Bible.

God's Calling - Process and timing

Here's my outline for this coming Sunday's sermon.  Any comments?   Probably too long for most readers, but a few might like to parse it.

Sabbath - Saturday or Sunday?

So, this past week, I received a free booklet in the mail from some cult that was trying to get me to request more information, and in the book, one of their pet doctrines was that we should be celebrating church on Saturday, rather than Sunday.  One of my friends was worried by the booklet, and asked me what was right, and I wrote him the response below.  He then responded in this fashion:

tx! whew. according to the booklet, anyone who didn't see Saturday as the Sabbath was going to be dammed. he then provided many quotes which were heavily interspersed with his interpretations.

Lessons Learned: Lunch with Thomas

Today, I had lunch with my favorite neofundamentalist pastor, Thomas.  Over lunch, we discussed some things, and I wanted to record some topics and insights that came up.

Also, note that he and another Pastor are starting an online seminary called The Veritas School of Theology, which is just in it's beginning stages. For this coming year, classes are free, so you might want to jump in.  I'll be taking the first class in Hermeneutics (HM101) (Tom has focused his studies on this, having purchased and perhaps even read almost 200 books on the topic).

The God of Modernism - Love without truth

ATP has a nice article entitled For the Love of God, in which he bemoans the modern simplistic view of "God is love" - it seems that moderns affirm this, but deny that God is any more than that.  Well done, and he makes some interesting theological observations.

Does God have an ego problem?

I have been following and posting on a recent Scott Adams (Dilbert creator) post on Pascal's Wager.  A couple of objection to the gospel that have come up are:

If he truly loves us as much as postulated in the bible then we should all be going to heaven regardless of our mistakes.

So to sum up, being a good person all your life is not enough to get you into Heaven, you have to ACKNOWLEDGE God!!!  Hey, sounds like God has an ego! Was he a rock star in his youth?? What a load of BS!

The LDS Nicene Creed

This modified Nicene Creed not only reflects the differences between Christianity and Mormonism, it is humorous to see it presented as a modified Nicene Creed.  My favorite?

And He and Joseph Smith (12) shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

Christian Theology Meme

Inspired by the largely free-for-all Theological Confessions meme, I thought to write one up that actually has questions.  Enjoy.

Evaluating God's Righteousness, Part I - Underestimating Sin

A recent commenter documented an impressive list of biblical "absurdities" which, in his or her mind, make the Biblical account of God seem foolish, primitive, and in some cases, immoral.  And while each proposed "bible difficulty" has an associated biblical apology to match, such apologies might not seem convincing to our mindset.  So before jumping into "answers," I thought that I might outline some of the principles which Christians, and perhaps others who are considering putting "God on trial" ought to consider.  Modern humanists might not agree with these principles, but they are part of the foundational assumptions underlying the biblical approach to judging the righteousness of the Biblical God and his people.

Before we decide whether or not, for example, God's killing of the firstborn in Pharoh's Egypt was just, we should consider the biblical viewpoints on sin, righteousness, and justice.  The first reason why we may not yet be equipped to judge God's actions, instructions, or inaction is because WE OFTEN UNDERESTIMATE THE EGREGIOUSNESS OF HUMAN EVILS.

The Sin of Sodom - Inhospitality or Homosexuality?

Kim over at Connexions has written an article showing us that the main sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality.  Of course, gay apologists have long claimed this, and actually, it is based on what I consider to be good hermeneutic - I find her conclusion on this matter sound.   However, what do we make of the fact that the Sodomites wanted to rape Lot's two male visitors?   

Harmonizing the Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection - Part I

This is for our commenter Cineaste, who recently pulled every possible example (from his favorite skeptics site, no doubt) of apparent Bible contradictions to prove his point that the Bible is unreliable in matters of faith.  The questions below are his, the answers, courtesy of Simon Greenleaf, skeptic turned believer.  Needless to say, there ARE answers for all such questions - but I doubt the hardened skeptic is really looking to believe - but this is for all the people who have not yet been poisoned by the skeptic's resolve to disprove faith.

Kierkegaard v. Kennedy on a Church Service

On a recent episode of Truths That Transform, D. James Kennedy remarked that Kierkegaard described a church service like this:

• The Preacher is the performer
• God is the prompter
• The Congregation are the critics

Interestingly, Kennedy said that he got it all wrong, and what actually is going on is:

• The Congregation are the performers
• The Preacher is the prompter
• Christ is the critic

He was preaching from Revelation 2:1-4, explaining how that, even though the church was good at discerning good from evil and exposing false teachers (and he commended them for that), they had left their "first love" for Christ.  And he explained that Christ is evaluating our hearts, and that HE is the critic that we should all be concerned about, rather than we being the critics of the church or the preacher.

The Wrath of God III - Reversing God's Abandonment

In Parts I and II, I outlined John MacArthur's exposition of Romans 1, in which he revealed the process of how God judges a nation or people by abandoning them to their fleshly passions.  The original sermon was delivered his April on the National Day of Prayer, and was broadcast on Focus on the Family in two parts.

In this last part, he gives reason for hope, and calls us to action.

The Wrath of God II - How God abandons a nation

In Part I, I listed the five types of Wrath of God, according to John MacArthur and the scriptures.  MacArthur then went on to discuss Romans 1, and his conviction that God has abandoned America (the fifth type of wrath).

The Wrath of God I - Five Types of Divine Anger

I urge you to listen to the first and second parts (second part tomorrow) of the two part radio series on Focus on the Family, which began today.  The series is a couple of lectures by John MacArthur entitled A Nation Abandoned by God (you can also download this and previous shows using the FOTF podcast RSS).  MacArthur is using Romans 1 as a description of one type of wrath of God - when God abandons us to our sinfulness by removing his restraint.   However, to set this idea up, he reviewed the five types of wrath that God exhibits in the bible. 

Since many people don't think or wrath as an attribute of God (having abandoned truth while holding only to grace), it is important to understand the judgment and righteous anger of God.

Elenctic Theology by Turretin

Dr. Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was an Italian Reformer who followed John Calvin and Theodore Beza in Geneva.  Among Reformed theologians, his works are considered some of the best.  His three volume magnum opus, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, is considered a classic work of systematic theology.  However, as this excellent review of Elenctic Theology remarks:

The Institutes are not technically a systematic theology, although they are commonly categorized and useful as such. As an elenctic work it is polemical in nature, written to expose errors. Its format excels in asking questions, opening Scripture and providing rebuttals (example: "Is the righteousness and obedience of Christ imputed to us the meritorious cause and foundation of our justification with God? We affirm against the Romanists and Socinians"). Turretin's goal is not only to open debates and establish the biblical truth but also to trace opposing thoughts back to their origins.

Opinions...everybody's got 'em

Andree Seu of World Magazine reminds us why we should hold opinions, but we should do it "loosely."

10 Points on Evangelical Postmillenialism

Along with the current end-time madness currently spurred by the grossly popular Left Behind series comes renewed debate among Christians about whose end-time theology is correct.  Of the many choices to choose from, evangelicals usually align with a Pre-millenialist view.  However, apologist and evangelical theologian Greg L. Bahnsen takes the post-millenialist view, and here's my listomania version.

10 Principles For Doing Apologetics

Here's a nice "Art of War" for apologetics, in list form, entitled Truth Tactics.  Nice tips for those of us defending Christianity.  If you like the list below, go and read his entire post.

Christians are privileged to be emissaries of the living God, heralds of hope, and defenders of divine truth. This is why it is imperative for them to approach apologetics in an intelligent fashion.  Certainly, a good portion of this effort will involve the discovery and implementation of important apologetic strategies.

My Two Cents (04/10b)

• Westminster Confessions in MP3 - It will only take you 65 minutes to listen to them all.  Nice.  You can read more about the Westminster Confessions at wikipedia.
• How to Study the Bible (mp3) - Lots of goodness from John MacArthur
• Redeeming Physics - A presentation on the biblical basis for science
• Theology of Origins - Dembski gives theologians a primer on evolution, creation, and ID.  A scientist informing preachers, nice.

Do Not Judge - Matthew 7:1-6

This is my first sermon, preached at my small country church.  The title is Do Not Judge: Matthew 7:1-6.

Enjoy.

NeoFundamentalism and the doctrine of Separation

What would make a fundamentalist reject or reclassify some of his fundamental brethren as "neo" fundamentalist, and why would they want to discuss separating from them?    Let me begin by saying that the doctrine of separation could fill books, and this is an introduction according to my neophyte understanding of the matter.  For some more depth, visit my friend Neofundametalist.

There are at least four ways to describe or view the doctrine of separation, and this may clear up why, how, and when we should separate from certain people.  These scriptures and doctrines definitely apply to the scores of Episcopalians leaving the mainline church because of it's pro-homosexual stance.

Three Definitions of "Neo-Fundamentalist"

One of the problems with the descriptors "fundamentalist" and "neofundamentalism" is that they carry different meanings among different groups.  This causes confusion when such things are discussed.  Below, I propose three different definitions of neo-fundamenalism, depending on who's asking.