No doubt, Evangelical Christians are known for their stamina as it pertains to the doctrine of inerrancy. Recently, I (Chris Lazo) was given an article written by Carl Rashke in his book The New Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity. The chapter I was given to read was entitled Beyond Inerrancy. Most of the arguments have to do with truth, and its knowability. I will briefly discuss the assertions that are made by the author, and attempt to draw a reasonable, biblically sound philosophy for my disagreement with it.
The chapter starts of with a short history of the doctrine of inerrancy, following the Reformation all the way through to the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy established by Evangelicals in 1978. Rashke quickly points out differences in interpretation and philosophy by various scholars and theologians, concluding that the Bible is simply a 'dialog' between God and humanity. This, he reasons, requires the need for an 'interlocutor' (a conversationists) to exegete the meaning of Scripture, which Rashke asserts, 'cannot possibly be construed as "propositional,'' (1) and 'is not logical' (2).
This is, of course, not the normal way to exegete the meaning out of ANY text, much less the Bible. It is widely known that the basic methodology behind expounding the meaning of ancient (or any) literature is to first explain the relation of the meaning between the author and his/her original recipients. For the Bible student, this is hermeneutics 101. We know that while the Bible is timeless in it's truth and message, it was inspired by God through the instrument of human authors. So before we suggest that timeless truth, we must first unpack the original meaning before we can apply it to ourselves. The proper method of interpreting Scripture is not to be a conversationalist, but to understand the conversation itself. And these conversations were full of propositional truth-claims made by various authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For Rashke to assert that they were wrong in these claims is literary deconstruction at best, but not basic Bible interpretation.
Rashke reasons that the Bible cannot be interpreted with any reasonable attempt at an objective truth because 'the idea of God as an entity knowable by propositional analysis is metaphysical' (3)
D. A. Carson labels this as 'hard postmodernism,' meaning that unless we have infinite (omniscient) knowledge about anything, we cannot know anything about anything (4). It's an all-or-nothing logic. This type of reasoning states (more simply) that you and I can make no propositional statement that all dogs must relieve themselves. Rashke would reason that our ability to discern this otherwise simple truth is hindered by our inability to omnisciently know every dog that has ever existed or will exist to judge whether or not they indeed need to relieve themselves. Actually, Rashke goes even farther by contending that we must know everything there is about every dog that has ever existed in order to justify any truth-claims about dogs. Now while I have garnered enough first-hand empirical evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt that all dogs urinate and all cat's are generally four-legged, it is not animals that concerns him. He uses this logic concerning humans, and God himself. He holds that 'any predictive statement we might make about a person cannot possibly exhaust the reality of who he or she is from God's point of view' (5). Again, this is all-or-nothing logic, and it misses the mark entirely. This insists that since we cannot know humans from God's point of view exhaustively, we cannot know either humans or God at all. And yet the foundation for Rashke's argument is based on a truth-claim that he considers to be propositional. So what is it Carl? Either we cannot know the truth (except for THAT truth that we cannot know any truth), or we CAN know truth, and you are wrong. Either way, his argument is self-refuting, unable to stand under the collapsable weight of it's own truth-claim.
Keeping in step with the relativistic model, Rashke denounces the doctrine of inerrancy as a late Christian invention. Although scholars as far back as Augustine speak of the infallibility of Scripture, Rashke points out that the concept of infallibility 'was never intended to guarantee a precise, literal, "factual" truth of every single biblical sentence' (6). He continues by denying that it was ever the 'rudimentary Augustinian and Reformed presumption' that the Scripture could only be saving if it were also free from 'logical discrepancies' (7).
Really? So it was not a 'rudimentary Augustinian presumption' of an error-free Bible, when Augustine claimed:
I have teamed to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture. Of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely "free from error" (8).And it was not a claim to inerrancy when Martin Luther stated repeatedly that,
'the Scriptures have never erred,’ and ‘the Scriptures cannot err' (9).And what do you make of the other famous reformer, John Calvin, when he claimed that even error itself would never be eradicated from the heart of man,
"until true knowledge of God [through Scripture] has been implanted in it (10)."Even Wesley opted to toss out the Bible if even one true mistake were found in it. Why? Because a God who errs in something so paltry as a fact of science, history, or geography cannot be an omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful God, regardless of His inerrant track record pertaining to doctrine and faith. The reformers new this. Rudimentary presumptions? Yes there were. Many of them. Ridiculed scholars like Hodge and Warfield simply believed what the Bible had to say. Let's not cry 'naive' simply because they have more faith in God's Word than we do.
Rashke then suggests that we obstruct the Words of God by placing them in 'the same epistemological box as our consensual, or commonsense, experience of the everyday world' (11). Basically, we cannot know Scripture. He then compares the doctrine of inerrancy to a modern form of gnosticism, insisting that inerrancy by nature is limited to a small group of 'privileged individuals,' who were 'segregated by masses of humanity' (12). He ends with a jab aimed at inerrancy claiming use of the second-century theologian, Irenaeus, who Rashke notes, 'spilled considerable ink both profiling the heretical teachings of the gnostics and refuting them' (13).The only separation of the 'masses' that would result from the doctrine of inerrancy, is that the masses would be offended by the content of a literally interpreted doctrine, such as Hell, judgment, or the cross. This should not surprise us, Jesus already warned us that it would be offensive.
Gnosticism, on the other hand, was a heretical sect of Christianity that prided itself on 'secret knowledge,' which was granted to random individuals who possessed it, not intellectuals. It is in fact, the intellectually diligent student of the Word who gleans the most from it. The doctrine of inerrancy actually provides some stringent guidelines to channel the intellect to a biblically sound conclusion.
Incorporating a powerful quote by an incredible theologian like Irenaeus doesn't make Rashke correct. In fact, it wounds his cause, considering Irenaeus was an apologist who was refuting heresies based off what he (Irenaeus) believed to be propositional truth. Rashke's quotation exposes the self-refuting nature of his claims, yet again.
In his mission to undermine the need for inerrancy, Rashke claims that salvation is based not through an inerrant text, but by a relationship with Jesus.
I would very much like to inquire of Rashke where he found out about this relationship with Jesus. And assuming he read it in the Bible, I do hope the salvation of his soul is founded on more than a mythologically loaded story line. Propositional truth would be nice, especially when my eternity hangs in the balance.
I do understand some of the hang-ups that come along with the doctrine of inerrancy. For example, some people misunderstand its implications in assuming a 'literal' interpretation of the text. This meaning, so often tied to inerrancy, is routinely misconstrued. Inerrancy still takes into account allegory, figures-of-speech, hyperbole, the recording of error, grammatical errors, cultural nuances, etc. This is acceptable. It would make more sense to believe that inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is true in all that it affirms.
Rashke begins to close his arguments by reasoning that inerrancy is without a needed result since Jesus Himself is the fullness of Scripture. He states, "If that were not the case, then Jesus would not have gone to the cross. He would have simply written a better book" (18).
While it is true that Jesus is the fulfillment of Scripture (Matt. 5:17), and He is indeed, the "Living Word," it is very Marcion-like to truncate the rest of Scripture's role as God's written revelation. Remember, God's written word was vital of the entire ministry and coming of the Living Word. Before His appearance, 'the Law provided the foundation for Christ, the historical books showed the preparation for Christ, the poetical works aspired to Christ, and the prophesies displayed an expectation of Christ' (19).
During and after His ministry, 'The Gospels recorded the historical manifestation of Christ, the Acts relate the propagation of Christ, the Epistles give the interpretation of Christ, and in Revelation is found the consummation of Christ’ (20).
There is much more to be stated concerning both inerrancy, and Carl Rashke's false assertions (which are propositional truth-claims, which he is opposed to). But I conclude that for the evangelical Christian, the claims noted are suffice in which to make a reasonable judgment. The difference between liberal theology of the Bible and those who treat it as God's actual word to us, is simply a viewpoint of Scripture, and Rashke has a low view of the Bible. I sometimes like to think of inerrancy as simply a 'naive' trust in what God has to say. Rashke's level of trust in it can be portrayed through his description of the doctrine of inerrancy:
"heresy" (14),
"meaningless" (15),
"thouroughly misplaced" (16),
and "idolatry" (17).
And you know what, he could be right (I emphatically doubt it, considering the wealth of objective, propositional evidence to support the contrary). But when I get to heaven and face God, I would rather tell Him that I believed every word He wrote me, and err on the side of naivety, than to pick and choose what I like and inform God that Rashke was more believable.
(1) Rashke, Carl. The New Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity 118.
(2) Ibid. 119
(3) Ibid. 119
(4) Carson, D. A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. 105.
(5) Rashke, Carl. The New Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity 119.
(6) Ibid. 122
(7) Ibid. 123
(8) Letters, LXXXII.
(9) Works of Luther, XV:1481; XIX:1073.
(10) Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 6.
(11) Rashke, Carl. The New Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity 127.
(12) Ibid. 127
(13) Ibid. 127
(14) Ibid. 131
(15) Ibid. 136
(16) Ibid. 134
(17) Ibid. 135
(18) Ibid. 134
(19) McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity. 23-24
(20) Ibid. 23-24
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment