N.T. Wright on the Bible and why he won’t call himself an inerrantist
“I don’t call myself an ‘inerrantist’ (a) because that word means what it means within a modernist rationalism, which I reject and (b) because it seems to me to have failed in delivering a full-blooded reading and living of what the Bible actually says.” RNS
- 82 views
Later in the same article, Wright comments in the historicity of Adam and Eve.
It’s human nature to oversimplify the truly complex and over-complicate the truly simple!
(IMO, NTW is just a new variant of theological liberal)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Boy, that Elephant Room II Invite with Mark Driscoll, NT Wright, and James McDonald really brought all the heavy hitters together, huh? It’d be interesting to feed them truth serum and have ER3 for the trainwreck factor. o_O
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
The “old-school” version of inerrancy (you know, the one we were taught at Seminary) appears to be under increasing attack. Dan Wallace, from Dallas Seminary, wrote a glowing review of a book which attacks this traditional view of inerrancy. One excerpt he approving cites is this:
“… the perception of ‘inerrancy’ offered by the old guard is dangerous, misleading, and obscurantist in that it will result in a view of the Bible that is not defensible or respectable, leading us down a path of endless epicycles of explanation, artificialities, and illogic. The end result will be to bring down scorn on the Christian faith and contributing [sic] to its demise in the Western world.”
How’s that for a wake-up call? A “conservative” scholar agrees with an approach that says the traditional view of inerrancy is embarrassing and indefensible.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Just when I was thinking the primary theological battles of our time had shifted to matters of interpretation (Matthew Vines’ recent book for example… as only the latest in a long list) among inerrantists, the old liberalism seems to be back in new clothes at the same time.
I’m increasingly struck by how often leaders openly use the “people will think less of us” rationale in support of a doctrinal shift. Even I was thinking that way, I’d be embarrassed to say it out loud.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Good grief, we are living among some incredible scripturally intellectual idiots.
When the Holy Scriptures which live and abide forever are challenged as being not dependable, the foundations of our faith are being destroyed, at least attempted to be destroyed, by those
who wish to claim they basically stand where we stand, our society of Christianity is in deep doo-doo.
Too many people will end up in the lake of fire because they will follow these blind leaders of the blind.
My consolation is, God has “magnified HIS Word above His Name.” His Word is “alive and powerful.” No matter what those foolish intellectuals say, they cannot stop the power of God’s Word.
I suppose this shows the battle between conservatives and moderates (or liberals, modernists) will never be over. There will always be those who dispute not only the term, but the concept of the inerrancy of the Bible.
Inerrancy certainly does not say all there is to say about the Bible. But it does present a vital part of all we should believe about it.
Southern Baptists fought and won a war (Conservative Resurgence) over the inerrancy of the Bible. But we will always have be careful not to lose this hard won victory.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/08/brief-history-of-sbc-conser…
I pray whether it is Southern Baptists or independent Baptists, we never turn our backs on the belief that the Bible is completely true and trustworthy.
David R. Brumbelow
[TylerR]The “old-school” version of inerrancy (you know, the one we were taught at Seminary) appears to be under increasing attack. Dan Wallace, from Dallas Seminary, wrote a glowing review of a book which attacks this traditional view of inerrancy. One excerpt he approving cites is this:
“… the perception of ‘inerrancy’ offered by the old guard is dangerous, misleading, and obscurantist in that it will result in a view of the Bible that is not defensible or respectable, leading us down a path of endless epicycles of explanation, artificialities, and illogic. The end result will be to bring down scorn on the Christian faith and contributing [sic] to its demise in the Western world.”
How’s that for a wake-up call? A “conservative” scholar agrees with an approach that says the traditional view of inerrancy is embarrassing and indefensible.
Not to sidetrack from the original post, but I skimmed Wallace’s review and the ensuing discussion in the comments. I wholeheartedly agree with the commenters that ask the simple question, “Do you agree with the Chicago Statement? If not, where do you disagree, and why?” Line-in-the-sand documents are helpful to anchor a discussion. The Chicago Statement articulated a view of inerrancy that explained what inerrancy does and doesn’t mean. Furthermore, Wallace’s review implies that “traditionalists” have a more wooden view than I’ve ever heard articulated…e.g., that the Gospels always record Jesus’ exact words. I think the Chicago Statement, and the “traditionalists” who follow it, allow for the idea that the Gospels provide us an inerrant summary of what Jesus said…that the Gospels unfailingly give us exactly what God wanted us to have about what Jesus said and taught. If we grounded the discussion in something like the Chicago Statement, we could get more clarity. (But, I suppose if you’re starting to drift, clarity is not longer valued like it used to be.)
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
I remember when I was a student at Maranatha, several years ago now, we were told the SBC would surely go under because all others before had gone under. I has been a joy to see the
courage and direction of those leaders who stood for God’s Word win the battles.
A\nd yes, we will forever on this earth have to contend for the faith.
John MacArthur’s next Shepherds conference will be a defense of inerrancy.
Jay, what do you mean about Elephant Room II with N.T. Wright? Do you mean T.D. Jakes?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
*blush*
You’re right, Greg. My apologies…I thought for sure that Wright was at ER2. Got the two confused.
The inerrancy debate will never go away. People will be arguing over that until the Antichrist establishes his throne, and probably until Jesus Himself returns on the white horse as outlined in Revelation. It will be discussed, for sure, during the millennial reign - at which point maybe Jesus himself will intercede and end it to put us all out of our misery. ;)
M. Osborne had a great point…I’ve really been impressed with the Chicago Statement and would use that as a basis if I ever teach on Bibliology for a sunday school class or whatever. It’s very thorough and helpful in understanding what we mean by the term.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Its fine to get passionate about the Bible’s veracity but then we need to deal with the details.
Bart Erhman has pointed out instances of textual conflict which many fundamentalists have refused to address and it has resulted in people abandoning the faith because their house was built on a poor foundation. Dan Wallace and others have taken on Erhman and expose his weak arguments overall. In the area of textual conflicts however Bible defenders need to do more work.
Mike Licona has a post which brings out some of these issues: http://www.risenjesus.com/chicagos-muddy-waters
I believe it can be a trap, on the other hand, to give answer to every bible conundrum. Sometimes we need to wait for more evidence to come in or for someone to connect the reference to another part of scripture for it to enlighten us.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
I am amazed by that review. It shocks me that Wallace would classify someone who is “skeptical of the supernatural” and “on the left side of the theological isle” as a fundamentalist. What then is a liberal!
I re-read the linked article. Wright actually said nothing. He prattled on and said nothing at all. How do you manage to do that? Does it take effort, or does it come naturally? Behold this bit of intellectual gymnastics from Wright:
I do not believe that that is a good way of describing how biblical theology works, for reasons I’ve gone into at length in other books. In particular, I don’t think it’s how Paul expounds “justification by faith.” So I think the “covenant of works” line is a kind of 2+2 = 5 thing. But that doesn’t mean Mr. Mohler and his friends are wrong about a historical Adam. Somewhere along the line there’s a 4+4 = 7 thing as well so the calculation comes out right for the wrong reasons.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I am surprised that he totally misses Romans 5. I can understand the argument about the non-historical Adam, because I know what that side holds too, but they end up having an indefensible position on Justification. I am just surprised this is coming from Wright. You cannot hold to a correct view on Justification and not hold to a historical Adam who was the first living human. This idea that Wright has is driven, 100% solely from his belief in a scientific hypothesis, that he then forces him to revisit his view on Scripture. He holds a higher view and a higher authority of secular science than he does of the Holy Scripture. He articulates well his rigid view of the inerrancy of science.
Discussion