Shoddy Biblical Scholarship

Oftentimes critics of the Bible engage in rather shoddy scholarship, resorting to weak theories of analysis, picking apart apparent inconsistencies, and then acting as if they are indeed scholars of the highest regard.  (Perhaps not always the last part.)  What many fail to realize is that the Bible is indeed one of the most complex books ever written, which draws upon at least 9 different areas of expertise.  I ran across a well-written article on the internet that addresses this topic.  Be aware though:  he’s rather sarcastic and blunt; however it’s worth reading if you are new to reading the Bible or have questions regarding Biblical interpretation.

Calculated Contempt: Why Bible Critics Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

What amazes me is how the Bible can be so complex, yet simple enough that all who will can understand and accept Christ.  Only the inspiration of God could have led to the formation of such a book.

On a side note, the same author addresses in detail the flaws in the popular atheistic film “The God Who Wasn’t There,” which caused a bit of a stir last year (I think last year???).

Again, I do not quite agree with his overall presentation.  Sure, it can be funny to sarcastically make fun of the inconsistencies of others (as atheists often attempt with Christianity), but it does nothing to further the cause of Christ (or atheism, for that matter).  Instead of attacking boldness and pride with boldness and pride, perhaps it would be better to respond with Christ-like humility.

On Dangerous “Absolute Unabsolutes”

I am a very, very BIG fan of doctrine.  It is the safeguard of the church against false teachers.  Also, the way in which one views and interprets the Bible can have a huge impact on that person’s holistic view of life.  As I learn more about Scripture, God changes my thinking about myself and those that I come into contact with.  I am very much in support of Christians consulting God’s Word as inspired scripture and building doctrine based on the exegetical meaning of passages.  I am also in support of churches adopting doctrine to follow (as long as they don’t approach it with hubris).

That having been said, it’s obvious that there are certain viewpoints of Christianity that are still disputed and have been disputed for a long time.  Let’s use Calvinism and Arminianism as examples.   I also believe that there are other areas of Christianity that are simply indisuptable to all (Based on a plenary verbal interpretation of the Bible), such as the way to salvation (by grace through repentance of sin and faith in Christ Jesus), and the concept that all men are sinners before a Holy and Just God.

A big problem that I see taking place, and it’s something that I have seen ever since I have been a young person growing up in church (even if I wasn’t aware of what was going on), is that these “absolute unabsolutes” are driving problematic wedges between the unified body of Christ.

Here’s a good example, fresh off of the front page of WordPress.com today, by one of the most-read religious bloggers on the site.  You may not have time to read the whole article, so just take a look at the last paragraph if you are short on time:  A Short Response to the Arminian Doctrine of Prevenient Grace.  The overall conclusion to this post is as follows:

My prayer for the universal church is that we would all come into the unity of the truth as God has revealed it to us … and that God-dishonoring theology, wherever it may come from, would be trampled under foot.

In this case, “God-dishonoring theology” is in direct reference to Arminian theology, which is followed by a group of well-researched, well-respected, Godly men.  I know this, because the Bible College that I attended largely taught this doctrine.  I am not ridiculous enough to assume that all Calvinists are dishonoring to God, even though I do believe, personally, that the doctrines of Reformed Arminianism are more cohesive with a holistic view of scripture.  The “us” in this passage acts as though all rational thinking Christians will come to the same conclusion that the author did.  In this case, the “us” is ill-founded.  The author should know better.  There are God-fearing, wonderful Christians on both sides of the coin.

The question that I am asking is quite simple:  Does this difference of interpreting scripture justify mud-slinging, bitterness, and lack of communion among brethren?  I consent that it does not, and in fact I wish that it were not so.  Someone once said that if you took today’s best theologians from the Calvinist side and put them in a room with today’s best theologians from the Arminian side, neither side would ever give in to the other side’s theological system.  The issue would still remain.  Scholars and seminaries have been debating it for years.  Certainly only one side can be the absolutely correct answer, as all scripture is hermeneutic; HOWEVER, since the issue has not been absolutely resolved at this point, it makes no sense to act like it HAS been and completely dismiss the other course of thinking.

Again, let me say that I am firmly certain of my belief in Free Will doctrine.  If others want to believe in the doctine of Calvinism, however, I cannot call them heretics.  I personally enjoy studying the differences between the two, and there is nothing wrong with debate over the issue either.  If these issues are in the Bible, then they are important to study.  Doctrine is important to formulate; however, acting as though one person’s doctrine is the end-all-be-all of all doctrines everywhere demonstrates an immense pride in human knowledge.  Remember: Biblical wisdom and understanding is of God, not of man.

There should be healthy debate over the scriptures.  I welcome healthy debate here on my blog and whereever else I may post, as long as it is founded on the basic, indisputable doctrines of scripture that all Christians believe in (in other words, as long as we approach the scripture with the same frame of reference: inspired by God).  I cannot tolerate blatant heresy, nor should any Bible-believing Christian.

I have said all of that to say this:  Instead of blasting one another, name-calling, and mud-slinging over scriptural disputes, we should be working together to resolve such disputes in a rational, good-natured manner.  This is one way in which Christians can witness to the immense love of God, by loving each other and working with one another out of respect for one another’s viewpoints on scripture.  Most of all, since the basic doctrines are indisputable, as a unified body we should put aside our differences and focus on spreading the good news that Christ has paid the penalty for all men and that God will save men from their sins.

I submit that doctrine is indeed important, but the spreading the gospel to those who have not heard it is much, much more important in the scheme of eternity.

Dispensationalism, Justice, and Grace

While I am still preparing for my book review, I want to spend a bit of time on another subject that was clarified to me after reading one of the book’s essays.  Since the subject mentioned does not deal specifically with war itself, I thought it proper to exclude it from the upcoming post and have it as a sort of precursor to the review.

I’ll state the obvious first: “Dispensationalism” is a big term.  For the common person, it’s almost like a doctor speaking to you in strict medical terminology.  There is a purpose to the word, but assuredly many do not know where it came from or what it means without some explanation.  Most highly educated individuals in seminaries across the globe are undoubtedly familiar with the word “dispensation” and what it means when applied to scripture, but the fact is that there are many people who have either never heard of it, or if they have, they are not clear about exactly what it means and why they should care.  Hopefully this blog will help to inform, or perhaps I will be better informed on the issue by others after sharing my understanding of it.

Here’s a litote for you: Jesus Christ radically changed the world.  Perhaps one of the key debates of dispensationalism is just how much changed when Christ came into the world and fulfulled the Messianic role.  How did salvation change?  How are we to view our relationship to God and to others now that Christ has come and offered the perfect sacrifice?  And perhaps the biggest question that dispensationalists deal with (or at least the one dealt with in this book):  How did Christ’s message of love affect our understanding of the Old Testament law?

According to the all-knowing, all-possibly-wrong Wikipedia, dispensationalism is “the divine distributing, dispensing or arranging of time and human events; depending on how the word is used, it can also refer to the excluding of rights and laws. Theological Dispensation is one of but several descriptions, each of which are simply attempts to understand events. Yet, whole denominations, and even religious structures have risen towards and against these various beliefs.”  Thus, the dispensationalist sees key periods of time as being quite different. 

To the dispensationalist, the Old Testament and the period of law has been completed, and it has been replaced by a period of grace through Christ and the New Testament.  The implications of this are many, especially when it comes to a Christian understanding of justice.  The determining of just how dangerous this point is depends on the dispensationalist’s view of the dispensations he has.  If a dispensationalist believes that the period of grace supercedes the period of law, it implies that Christians should only act out of love, never out of defense, leaving justice to government alone.  There is also the option that a dispensationalist can have a much more liberal view of his dispensations, delegating them to epochs rather than theological constructs.  This is much less dangerous, yet is still susceptible to a weaker interpretation of scripture.  This point is also, of course, my opinion.

Ok, time for a reset in case I lost someone along the way:  Dispensationalism is a way of looking at the Bible in such a way that it views different parts of the Bible as “dispensations” or periods of time.  The most dangerous form of dispensationalism is the sort that states that Christ’s message of love supercedes the Old Testament’s formality and law.

I have to agree that many of the Old Testament laws are no longer restraining.  We are no longer under the Jewish law.  Through Christ, and through grace, we have been set free from the burden of it.  The fact is, though, the law remains there to remind us of our shortcomings.  It has not magically disappeared, nor will it ever.  Here’s another good point to ponder:  Whereas some believe that Christ supercedes the law, others believe that Christ fulfilled the law.  Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law.  God gave us the law out of love and justice, and He sent His son out of love to fulfill it.  There are no dispensations, only the natural progression of events, a fulfillment of prophecy and a universal way for salvation.

When some advocate for the Christian to refrain from all acts and forms of justice, limiting their idea of Christianity to peaceful nonresistence, they are ignoring the law of God and the system of government that He allows.  God supplied grace for all men, yet there has to be a system of justice in place to punish those who do wrong.

More will follow on this subject later.