Class X:Class X:The Erosion of Inerrancy in The Erosion of Inerrancy in

EvangelicalismEvangelicalism

Glenn GilesGlenn Giles

ApologeticsApologetics

December, 2009December, 2009

The Erosion of InerrancyThe Erosion of Inerrancy in in EvangelicalismEvangelicalism (late 1900s- (late 1900s-

2000s)2000s)• Many who call themselves “Evangelical” Many who call themselves “Evangelical”

are retreating from holding to biblical are retreating from holding to biblical inerrancy and embracing and defending inerrancy and embracing and defending the the doctrine of accommodation which doctrine of accommodation which holds that there are errors in the Bible.holds that there are errors in the Bible.

• They believe there are errors in the Bible They believe there are errors in the Bible but those errors are not attributable to Godbut those errors are not attributable to God

• Biblical Criticism has been the impetus for Biblical Criticism has been the impetus for many of the perceived errorsmany of the perceived errors

• The Doctrine of accommodation is their The Doctrine of accommodation is their way of explaining those errors.way of explaining those errors.

Two Causes of the Erosion of Two Causes of the Erosion of Inerrancy According to BealeInerrancy According to Beale

1.1. “The onset of postmodernism in “The onset of postmodernism in evangelicalism has caused less evangelicalism has caused less confidence in the propositional claims confidence in the propositional claims of the Bible, since such claims have to of the Bible, since such claims have to be understood only by be understood only by fallible human fallible human interpretersinterpreters. This influence has also . This influence has also resulted in an attempt to downplay the resulted in an attempt to downplay the propositional nature of Scripture itself propositional nature of Scripture itself and to overemphasize the relational and to overemphasize the relational aspect of biblical revelation” aspect of biblical revelation” (1)(1)[1][1] G. K. Beale, G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical AuthorityThe Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority, (Wheaton: Crossway: 2008), 20., (Wheaton: Crossway: 2008), 20.

Causes of the Erosion of Causes of the Erosion of InerrancyInerrancy

2.2. “In the last twenty-five years there has been “In the last twenty-five years there has been an increasing number of an increasing number of conservative conservative students graduating with doctorates in students graduating with doctorates in biblical studies and theology from non-biblical studies and theology from non-evangelical institutionsevangelical institutions. A significant . A significant percentage of these graduates have percentage of these graduates have assimilated to one degree or another non-assimilated to one degree or another non-evangelical perspectivesevangelical perspectives, especially with , especially with regard to higher critical views of regard to higher critical views of authorship, authorship, dating, and historical claims of the Bibledating, and historical claims of the Bible, , which have contributed to their discomfort which have contributed to their discomfort with the traditional evangelical perspective of with the traditional evangelical perspective of the Bible.”the Bible.”((1)1)

[1][1] Ibid. Ibid.

The Theory of The Theory of AccomodationAccomodation

• ““Accommodation is God’s adoption of the Accommodation is God’s adoption of the human audience’s finite and fallen human audience’s finite and fallen perspective.perspective. Its underlying conceptual Its underlying conceptual assumption is that in many cases God does assumption is that in many cases God does not correct our mistaken human viewpoints not correct our mistaken human viewpoints but merely assumes them in order to but merely assumes them in order to communicate with us” communicate with us” (Kenton L. Sparks, (Kenton L. Sparks, God’s Word in Human WordsGod’s Word in Human Words (Grand Rapids:Baker (Grand Rapids:Baker

Academic, 2008), 230-31).Academic, 2008), 230-31).

• ““Accommodation tells us that any errant Accommodation tells us that any errant views in Scripture stem, not from the views in Scripture stem, not from the character of our perfect God,character of our perfect God, but from his but from his adoption in revelation of the finite and fallen adoption in revelation of the finite and fallen perspectives of his human audiences” perspectives of his human audiences” (Sparks, 256.)(Sparks, 256.)

Two types of Two types of AccommodationAccommodation

1.1. Unconscious AccommodationUnconscious Accommodation --Jesus and the NT writers were typical persons of their --Jesus and the NT writers were typical persons of their times and culture. As such they “naturally and times and culture. As such they “naturally and unconsciously” accepted some of the untrue traditions of unconsciously” accepted some of the untrue traditions of their culture and incorporated them into their writings their culture and incorporated them into their writings and sayingsand sayings..[1][1] [1] Beale, 143.[1] Beale, 143.

--This could be why Matthew would have ascribed verses --This could be why Matthew would have ascribed verses in Deutero-Isaiah) to Isaiah the prophet (cf., Mt. 3:3 in Deutero-Isaiah) to Isaiah the prophet (cf., Mt. 3:3 quoting Is. 40:3; and Mat. 8:17 quoting Is. 53:4). quoting Is. 40:3; and Mat. 8:17 quoting Is. 53:4).

--But once this door is open, how can we be sure of --But once this door is open, how can we be sure of anything Jesus and the Apostle’s said concerning even anything Jesus and the Apostle’s said concerning even spiritual issues? spiritual issues?

Types of AccommodationTypes of Accommodation

2.2. “Conscious accommodation.”“Conscious accommodation.” In this view Jesus and In this view Jesus and the NT writers would have known something in the NT writers would have known something in their culture and tradition was erroneous but would their culture and tradition was erroneous but would have consciously accommodated themselves to have consciously accommodated themselves to “the false Jewish view in order to facilitate” the “the false Jewish view in order to facilitate” the “communication of the message”. This would have “communication of the message”. This would have allowed the main point to get across while allowed the main point to get across while permitting the false points “to remain permitting the false points “to remain unchallenged.” unchallenged.” [1][1]

--The problem with this is that it seems that part of --The problem with this is that it seems that part of Jesus’ mission was to “expose false traditions of Jesus’ mission was to “expose false traditions of Judaism” not to accommodate them!Judaism” not to accommodate them! [2][2]

[1] Beale, 144.[1] Beale, 144.[2] Ibid.[2] Ibid.

Some Biblical Criticism Some Biblical Criticism Challenges to EvangelicalismChallenges to Evangelicalism

• Many sources for the Pentateuch and several Many sources for the Pentateuch and several authors not contemporary with Moses. It is authors not contemporary with Moses. It is historically unreliable.historically unreliable.

• Isaiah was written by several authors not Isaiah was written by several authors not contemporay with him at different times in historycontemporay with him at different times in history

• ““Daniel includes pseudoprophecy” and was written Daniel includes pseudoprophecy” and was written in the mid 2nd century BC in the mid 2nd century BC

• History in the Chronicles is “partially fictional”History in the Chronicles is “partially fictional”• ““Jonah is fictional”Jonah is fictional”• Some differences in John and the Synoptics “cannot Some differences in John and the Synoptics “cannot

be historically harmonized” and cannot all be truebe historically harmonized” and cannot all be true• The “Pastoral Epistles were written by someone The “Pastoral Epistles were written by someone

other than Paul” other than Paul” (Quotes from Sparks, 169-70)(Quotes from Sparks, 169-70)

Biblical Criticism ChallengesBiblical Criticism Challenges

• The “narratives in Genesis, e.g., The “narratives in Genesis, e.g., creation and the flood, are shot creation and the flood, are shot through with myth, much of which through with myth, much of which the biblical narrator did not know the biblical narrator did not know lacked correspondence to actual past lacked correspondence to actual past reality.” reality.” [1][1]

• Myth seems to be defined as “stories Myth seems to be defined as “stories without an ‘essential historical’ without an ‘essential historical’ foundation”. foundation”. [2][2]

[1] Beale, 53.[1] Beale, 53.[2] Beale 74.[2] Beale 74.

Biblical Criticism ChallengesBiblical Criticism Challenges

• The NT use of the OT: “Did Jesus and the apostles preach The NT use of the OT: “Did Jesus and the apostles preach the right doctrine from the wrong texts?”the right doctrine from the wrong texts?” [1][1] --Some essentially advocate--Some essentially advocate, for example, that , for example, that “Paul in I “Paul in I Corinthians 10:4 did not distinguish his own beliefs from Corinthians 10:4 did not distinguish his own beliefs from the false beliefs of the Jewish culture around himthe false beliefs of the Jewish culture around him.” .” [2][2] According to Beale, Peter Enns believesAccording to Beale, Peter Enns believes that “To affirm that “To affirm that Paul’s “the rock that followed them” is an that Paul’s “the rock that followed them” is an unconscious transmission of a popular exegetical unconscious transmission of a popular exegetical traditiontradition (“legend . . .) does not compromise revelation (“legend . . .) does not compromise revelation but boldy affirms it a its very heart.” but boldy affirms it a its very heart.” ((3)3) --Other problem passages--Other problem passages seem to include the following seem to include the following seven: “Exodus 3:6 in Luke 20:27-40; Hosea 11:1 in seven: “Exodus 3:6 in Luke 20:27-40; Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15; Isaiah 49:8 in 2 Corinthians 6:2; Abraham’s Matthew 2:15; Isaiah 49:8 in 2 Corinthians 6:2; Abraham’s seed in Galatians 3:16, 29; Isaiah 59:20 in Romans 11:26-seed in Galatians 3:16, 29; Isaiah 59:20 in Romans 11:26-27; Psalm 95:9-10 in Hebrews 3:7-11.” 27; Psalm 95:9-10 in Hebrews 3:7-11.” [4][4]

[1] Beale, 105.[2] Beale, 101.[3] Beale, 100.[4] Beale, 89.[1] Beale, 105.[2] Beale, 101.[3] Beale, 100.[4] Beale, 89.

Term PaperTerm Paper

• Write a 8 to 10 page double spaced Write a 8 to 10 page double spaced term paper on one of the 9 above term paper on one of the 9 above listed Issues raised by Biblical listed Issues raised by Biblical Criticism. Explain the issues involved Criticism. Explain the issues involved from different viewpoints, evaluate from different viewpoints, evaluate the issue, and give a conservative the issue, and give a conservative response to the challenge.response to the challenge.

Inerrancy: Where do you Inerrancy: Where do you Stand?Stand?• DiscussionDiscussion

--Would you be able to accept errors in --Would you be able to accept errors in the Bible? Why or why not?the Bible? Why or why not?

--How do you define “error”?--How do you define “error”?--What do you think of the doctrine of --What do you think of the doctrine of “accommodation”?“accommodation”?

Resource defending inerrancy:Resource defending inerrancy:G. K. Beale, G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in The Erosion of Inerrancy in

Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical AuthorityBiblical Authority (Wheaton: Crossway Books, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008).2008).

Biblical Inspiration:Biblical Inspiration:How Do You Understand It?How Do You Understand It?

• What to you think of Dr. Daniel Wallace’s View?What to you think of Dr. Daniel Wallace’s View?

--Inspiration means that the Bible is “both the --Inspiration means that the Bible is “both the Word of God and the words of men. . . Without Word of God and the words of men. . . Without violating the authors’ personalities they wrote violating the authors’ personalities they wrote with their own feelings, literary abilities, and with their own feelings, literary abilities, and concerns. But in the end, God could say, ‘That’s concerns. But in the end, God could say, ‘That’s exactly what I wanted to have written.’”exactly what I wanted to have written.’”(Lee Strobel, (Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real JesusThe Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 74)., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 74).

Dr. Wallace’s View Continued: Dr. Wallace’s View Continued: InerrancyInerrancy

• Views of inerrancyViews of inerrancya. The Bible is like a tape recorder: Words a. The Bible is like a tape recorder: Words are are exactly what was saidexactly what was saidb. Ancient writers were concerned with b. Ancient writers were concerned with “getting the gist of what was said” not the “getting the gist of what was said” not the

exact wordsexact wordsc. The Bible is “true in what it touches”. c. The Bible is “true in what it touches”. “We “We can’t treat it like a scientific book or a can’t treat it like a scientific book or a

twenty-first-century historical twenty-first-century historical document” document” ((Strobel, Strobel, 75)75)

Dr. Wallace’s ViewDr. Wallace’s View

• Holds to inerrancy=Bible is true in Holds to inerrancy=Bible is true in what it toucheswhat it touches

• Holds to infallibility=Bible is true in Holds to infallibility=Bible is true in what it teacheswhat it teaches

Dr. Wallace’s Bibliology Dr. Wallace’s Bibliology PyramidPyramid

InerrancyInerrancy(Bible is true in what it touches)(Bible is true in what it touches)

I n f a l l i b i l i t yI n f a l l i b i l i t y(Bible is true in what it teaches(Bible is true in what it teaches

in reference to faith and practice)in reference to faith and practice)G o d ‘ s G r e a t A c t s I n H i s t o r yG o d ‘ s G r e a t A c t s I n H i s t o r y

Discussion:Discussion: What do you think of this? What is to be What do you think of this? What is to be the foundation of one’s faith?the foundation of one’s faith?