I recently read a book by Greg Boyd titled “Inspired Imperfection,” in which he sets forth his belief that the Scriptures are Divinely inspired but have a multitude of errors. These errors served the Divine purpose to show the nature of God who delights in showing mercy, and especially His mercy in the cross of Christ. God, as Boyd sees it, accommodated all the human error and tall tales in Scripture for that purpose. Boyd came to this conclusion after a crisis of faith in which he suffered “shipwreck” (spiritually speaking) when he could not refute his evolutionary professor—as a young believer he thought he could take on the evolutionist, but he lost, which led to him departing from the faith for a time. He eventually returned to the faith, but he concluded that Scripture had a multitude of errors, yet he still chose to believe in its Divine inspiration, and so he came up with his Divine accommodation model.
Having Boyd's accommodation view of Divine inspiration, one can chose what is true and what is not true. Anything that you think is historically questionable or objectionable, you can dismiss it as error that God allowed to be included in Scripture. One has to at least believe in the death and resurrection of Christ as being historical, or otherwise, what's the point of even being a Christian? (Read First Corinthians chapter 15.) Unless you are that kind of Christian (like Martin Luther King) who just sees Jesus as a good example to follow (Jesus is not God, and there is no resurrection) and your gospel message is liberation theology: seeking the deliverance of the oppressed, emphasizing social justice and the plight of the poor.
I'm about halfway through a 730-page book on the “Historical Reliability of the New Testament” by Craig Blomberg. This is just on the New Testament, and I'm sure he had to limit his material, but it amazes me the issues that he has to address—the many claims of critics against the reliability of Scripture. The critics never end. I understand that the Bible can't be true, if you don't want to believe it. I have the Atheist Richard Dawkins' book “The Blind Watchmaker,” and he says that to believe in a “Designer” of life “who has always been there” is to take the “lazy way out.” I understand why he says that—because he is an atheist, and he wants to believe in his theory of how life came about through his “cumulative selection” theory, regardless of the astronomical odds against it—which he admits: he believes in a whole lot of “luck.” But if God is the creator, then it doesn't matter, even if it is the lazy way out.
I recently read Greg Boyd's book “The Benefit of the Doubt,” in which he believes faith includes doubt, and doubt is a good thing. He believes that certainty, or the pursuit of certainty, is or can be a form of idolatry. It's not doubt that is bad but wavering. I'm still a little uncertain on the difference between doubt and wavering. He believes that faith is trusting God in spite of your doubts; trust God and do not waver. OK, but maybe it depends on how we define all those terms: faith, trust, certainty, doubt, and waver, and it also depends on what the object of your faith is. It's possible that two objects are in view, one of which you are certain and another in which you have uncertainty: such as I am certain God can heal me, but I don't know for certain he will.
But when it comes to the “benefit of the doubt,” I would apply that to Scripture. I am going to give it--Scripture-- the benefit of the doubt: I'm going to believe it is accurate even though the extra-biblical evidence is not available or lacking. If we still lack extra-biblical verification of some biblical account, I'm going to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt. I once heard that the “Bible Answer Man,” Hank Hanegraaff, doubted that the veil in the Temple tore in two when Jesus died, because there wasn't any extra-biblical reference to it. I would give Scripture the benefit of the doubt on that.
I would look to how Jesus and Paul understood and used Scripture. Did they believe in its authority and accuracy? Didn't Jesus say that “the Scripture cannot be broken?” Didn't Jesus say to the Sadducees that they were "mistaken not knowing the Scripture?" Wasn't Jesus accepting the accuracy of Scripture when he spoke of God in the beginning making mankind as "male and female" or when he spoke of Moses writing about him or when he spoke of the people of Nineveh repenting with the preaching of Jonah or that he came to fulfill all that was written of him in the Law of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms (there was no debate among the Jews what writings were Scripture when Jesus referenced them as Scripture)? Didn't Paul use the Scriptures to demonstrate to the Jewish people in their synagogues that Jesus was the Christ? Didn't Paul say that all Scripture is “God-breathed” and “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
Jesus, quoting Moses, said “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4 And where do we find that “every word?” I'm going to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment