Bibleland: the cost of inerrancy's victory...

(David) Tim's and my father, Joe Bayly, used to say (in private and only to family members) that the price of inerrancy's doctrinal defeat of liberalism in the battle for the Bible of the 60s and 70s was the loss of the authority of God's Word.

Today I'm as firmly convinced that Dad was right as I am that the Word is without error. It is inerrant, but the battle to prove inerrancy transformed the Word from the roaring lion of Amos into a patient needing the care of experts, from public glory and present power into the private realm of reflection. 

Evangelical scholars were happy to come to the Word's defense. They put the Word under their microscopes in the search for vaccines against liberalism. Scholarly reputations were forged. And preachers all too willingly deferred--they were the students of these scholars, how could they tread confidently where their masters trod mincingly?

The result is a post-Reformation Protestant Church in which scholars and preachers illuminate the Word and usher people into the glories of the Word rather than preach the Word as a lamp for the illumination of glorious earthly paths. (If you doubt this, just take any of the most-recommended modern commentaries from an Evangelical or Reformed background and compare it to Calvin's commentary on the same book. Calvin respects and applies the Word while modern commentators explain, justify and generally try to support the Word.)

Thus, the modern Evangelical/Reformed world which is Bible rich but Spirit poor. The Word has become a walled garden, a magical mystery tour Christians enter into--BibleLand--rather than a map, a guide, a light for real life.

To some degree, this is why R2K flourishes. There is BibleLand, and there is real life, and they're radically separate. This is also why the Evangelical and Reformed community in America is so ineffective as salt and light in the world. We have made the Word a land unto itself, reducing faith to a private spiritual pursuit that illuminates the interior life but which is not only impotent in the face of, but opposed to, the hue and cry of external civic life.

Of course, the best evidence of Scriptural inerrancy isn't found in any defense of the Word, no matter how eloquent, but in the Word itself, the Word applied and practiced.

I've been reading Luke lately and I am routinely awestruck by the amazing real-world claims Jesus consistently makes to His disciples recorded in the Word.

Take this as just one example. Jesus says to His disciples:

"But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you. Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with money-bags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys."

All the scholarly publications and dissertations combined won't prove the word's inerrancy and estabish its authority quite the way one man taking this passage to heart will. One man, selling his goods and giving to the poor will do more to reveal the lion in the pages of Scripture than all the sermons on the glories of the Word combined. 

"But be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only."

Comments

R2K advocates all too often not only fail to apply scripture to the world outside the church they want the dialogue within the church, regarding the outside word, to be conducted as if God did not exist.

We do seem to have a situation where a pastor says he so loves the Word that he will fight to the death for the six days of creation, but he doesn't dare criticize no-fault divorce.

It's a bit like Roman Catholics who swear by the infallibility of the Pope in general and on things like the sinlessness of Mary (the "immaculate conception") but ignore what he says on birth control.

To determine a person's belief, or perhaps even one's own, one needs to look at behavior.

Yeah, my shorthand way of describing the church of my youth is that they all believed the Bible was true, they just didn't know what it said.

As to authority and R2K, it is reasonable to assume that Jason's accusers in Acts 17:7 weren't pulling their charges out of thin air. We have a King who rules us as He saves us. We must obey Him rather than Caesar, our Kurios over the Kaisaros. John didn't accept Herod's definition or limits of acceptable preaching or conversation--he obeyed the Word as part of his mission to herald the Word.

After Calvin this week, Jonathan and I were talking about this truth, and the fact that we so rarely have thought on it. Your question about viewing the words of the Bible as inerrant in themselves or the actions taken by men throughout the Bible as inerrant really made me think about my life and how much I am taking God's promises seriously. Thank you for bringing it to attention. Love you.

Thanks, Nate. Love you.

Pastor Bayly:

I've seen this problem at a former bible college I attended. At Cincinnati Bible College we were taught to view the bible like something dead that needed to be dissected and scrutinized in order to make sure it was understood "what Saint Paul really meant". The result was that everyone ended up with extremely different interpretations (liberal of course) on any given subject ranging from the existence of hell to sodomy. All the while the school held to the inerrancy of scripture.

When a man today talks of being "all about" the inerrancy of scripture, it's his weasel-way of avoiding the authority of it. After all, he knows the text better than everyone else.

Bibleland...kind of like Narnia or the Shire.

A brilliant picture of the cost of inerrancy's victory was a Sunday school class my daughter was in where the teacher informed the class that John 2 wasn't really referring to wine.

In a church where too many were all worried about whether Bible translations were using Alexandrian texts or Textus Receptus no less. All too often, we argue viciously about the root texts and their relative authority, and then we dither about actually reading the text as it actually is....

Add new comment