Directions in Evangelicalism, Part 6

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

Kenton Sparks and Biblical Inerrancy

When we began this series on directions in evangelicalism, one of the first works that we explored was Kenton Sparks’s God’s Word in Human Words (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008). At that time, I merely summarized Sparks’s theory. Now I wish to go back and to offer at least the suggestion of a response.

Let’s begin with a thought experiment. Imagine that God comes to you with the announcement that He has just created an entirely new world, and He wants to show it to you. You agree, and in an instant you are transported into that world. At first you marvel at its beauty, but then you begin to notice phenomena that strike you as odd.

First, you notice that many of the trees in this world are already fully grown. Then you notice that they are surrounded by saplings and young trees in various stages of growth. You even notice seeds hanging on branches and, in some cases, lying on the ground. Plant life exists at every stage of development.

Then you notice that the world is populated by animals and birds. Many of these appear to be mature creatures, but you also notice their young. You find yourself surrounded by calves and foals and chicks and cubs of every sort. With a bit of investigation, you discover that there are already birds’ nests, and that some of them have eggs in them. Animal life exists at every stage of development.

As you wander, you discover a canyon with a river at the bottom. In the sides of the canyon you can plainly see the various layers of rock. You know that these geological strata are supposed to take many years to form. Geological formations exist at every stage of development.

As night falls, you cast your gaze toward the heavens. You behold a spangled expanse that is brighter and more piercing than any you’ve ever seen. But then you recall that this world is supposed to be less than a day old. Since stars are supposed to be light-years away, you wonder how you could be seeing them already. Yet you behold astral phenomena at every stage of development.

If you had no other source of information, you would assume that this world had been in existence for ages, not for mere hours. Interpreted within your normal frame of reference, the facts indicate an old world. At this point you must make a choice. You may choose to interpret the facts within your normal frame of reference and believe in an ancient world, or you may accept what the Creator said, and then search for some other interpretation of the facts.

This choice can never be made on the basis of the evidence itself. The evidence is what requires explanation. It does not explain itself. If you know that the Creator is capable of making Himself understood, and if you know that the Creator means to be understood and does not deceive, then you will believe in a young creation. If, on the other hand, you choose to interpret the evidence according to your normal assumptions, then you must conclude that perhaps the Creator is mistaken, or that He means to mislead, or perhaps that He is incapable of expressing Himself; at any rate, His words must be construed differently than He plainly intended.

The situation in which Kenneth Sparks finds himself is parallel to the one in our thought experiment. Sparks begins by looking at Assyrian texts as an example of how scholars treat ancient documents. He then assumes that Scripture must be treated in the same way. On these assumptions, one must discern the authorship and composition of biblical documents in the same way that one discerns the authorship and composition of other ancient literature. Faced with the implications of his assumptions, Sparks is forced to agree with a whole range of contemporary higher-critical conclusions that deny the actual truthfulness of the assertions of Scripture.

The fundamental error that Sparks commits is to assume that we must treat Scripture like any other text in terms of its production. Scripture itself explicitly informs us that it was not produced like other texts. It was produced by theopneustia (2 Tim. 3:16). In the production of the Scriptures, men spoke from God as they were borne along by the Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). Since God is apseudes (falsehood is utterly foreign to Him and repugnant to His nature), and since Scripture is the word of God Himself, then Scripture cannot possibly affirm anything that is false.

Sparks knows that the evidence always needs to be interpreted, and he is also aware that the Bible claims a supernatural origin. Over against these claims he appeals to natural revelation, i.e., to the disclosure of God’s character and ways as found in the created order. Then he avers, “Creation’s word provides the fundamental context for understanding all of special revelation, including both the written and incarnate Word” (267). In other words, both Scripture and Christ have to be interpreted in accordance with the facts as they appear in our general knowledge of the world. For Sparks, this context includes the putative facts of biblical criticism. This is really the core of his position.

To go back to the thought experiment with which we began, here is how Sparks would react. He would observe the apparent age of the trees, animals, rocks, and stars. He would conclude that the world must obviously be ancient. Then he would insist that God’s original claim must be interpreted within the context of an obviously ancient world.

I do not believe that Sparks offers a consistently Christian way to understand Scripture or the world. On the contrary, Christians must begin with an absolute commitment to the infinite-personal, faithful, apseudes God. This God can and does say exactly what He means. What He affirms is always true. Since the Bible is always His Word, it may always be trusted in anything that it asserts. The Bible is never to be interpreted by the facts of general revelation. On the contrary, the Bible itself communicates the grand context, the Truth (with a definite article and a capital T), the framework within which all facts must be interpreted.

Once we have presupposed the truth of Scripture, the facts remain interesting to us. We will certainly attempt to explain them. But our explanation never begins from some detached or neutral starting point. It certainly never begins with an assumption that facts are transparent or self-explanatory. We take God at His word.

Christians must never interpret facts from a position of autonomy. To do so is the essence of arrogance. Rather, humble submission to the Word of the Creator is the starting place for a right understanding of the world. When the Lord God speaks, His Word alters the entire frame of reference within which the facts are to be understood. A newly created world may look ancient but still be young. A divinely inspired text may look as if it had been produced like other literature, yet remain unique in its truthfulness. We can only know what a thing is if we are willing to begin by accepting what God says about it.

Go, Heart, Unto the Lamp of Licht

From The Gude and Godlie Ballatis (1567)

Anonymous

Go, heart, unto the lamp of licht,

Go, heart, do service and honour,

Go, heart, and serve him day and nicht,

Go, heart, unto thy Saviour.

Go, heart, to thy only remeid,

Descending from the heavely tour:

Thee to deliver from pyne and deide,

Go, heart, unto thy Saviour.

Go, heart, but dissimulatioun,

To Christ, that took our vile nature,

For thee to suffer passioun,

Go, heart, unto thy Saviour.

Go, heart, richt humill and meek,

Go, heart, as leal and true servitour,

To him that heill is for all seek,

Go, heart, unto thy Saviour.

Go, heart, with true and haill intent,

To Christ thy help and haill succour,

Thee to redeem he was all rent,

Go, heart, unto thy Saviour.

To Christ, that raise from death to live,

Go, heart, unto thy latter hour,

Whais great mercy can nane descrive,

Go, heart, unto thy Saviour.

This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.