R.C. Sproul's Blog, page 589

A Primer on Inerrancy (pt. 8)

In this excerpt from John Gerstner’s Primitive Theology, Dr. Gerstner looks at the issue of inerrancy and seeks briefly and non-technically to present a case for Bible Inerrancy that a serious-minded layman can follow and evaluate. Though by no means an exhaustive treatment, it is one that is sound and faithful to the Scriptures. This is the eighth and final part of the series. Dr. Gerstner has looked at both unsound and sound bases for sound doctrine. And now he is answering a couple of objections to inerrancy.

Continued from Part 7

Objections Allegedly Arising from Science

It is objected to the inerrancy doctrine that the Bible has many errors traceable to the inadequacy of the knowledge of the period during which the Bible was written. This is a major reason for setting aside the Westminster Confession by the drafters of “The Confession of 1967,” as may be seen in the Appendix. It is added that these errors do not invalidate the message of the Bible, but merely disprove its inerrancy and inspiration. Adherents of infallibility, it says, are forced into all sorts of unscholarly and obscurantist positions in their necessary defense of the Bible versus the findings of modern science. Admitting the mere humanness of the Bible, and seeking the Word of God elsewhere than in its pages, are presented as truly scientific and, at the same time, truly spiritual.

To this we reply, first, this position overlooks the two kinds of authority in an infallible Bible. There is what is called “historical authority” and “normative authority” (which is discussed more fully in the Appendix). Historical authority applies to every word of an inerrant Bible, and tells us simply that whatever the Bible says was said or done was indeed said or done. Such information does not tell us whether what was said and done ought to have been said or ought to have been done. Only the normative authority of the inerrant Bible answers that question. For a fuller discussion of this difference see the Appendix. Its relevance to the point under question is important. It teaches us that Bible writers themselves may have been laboring under erroneous impressions without this being normative instruction for us. Suppose they did think of a three-storied universe, which was the common opinion in their day, the Bible does not err unless it teaches such as a divine revelation of truth. In fact, by showing that the writers may have personally entertained ideas now antiquated it reveals its own historical authenticity without its normative authenticity suffering.

Second, sometimes the difference between popular and technical or pedantic language is overlooked. “At sunset, Isaac went out to meditate” (Genesis 24:63) does not mean that the Bible teaches the Ptolemaic astronomy. It is not pedantically teaching that the sun rotates about the earth so that there is a literal “sunset.” This was and is a common way of speaking and does not necessarily reflect the thinking of those who use such language. Someone has said that if the Bible were to be scientifically exact it would have read: “when the rotation of the solar luminary on its axis was such that its rays impinged horizontally on the retina, Isaac went out to meditate.” I once lived in “Sunset Hills,” and not one adult in the community believed that the sun ever sets. Likewise the “sun’s standing still” (Joshua 10:12) would be the way things would appear, not necessarily the way they would be. While we are referring to this miracle let us add another observation dealing with another criticism. Some object to the accuracy of this particular miracle, arguing that if the sun did appear stationary for so long a period the whole universe would have been thrown out of order in one way and another. The objection is puerile. If God is able to do as much as the narrative relates it would be no more difficult to take care of all the attendant details! For the Creator, any manipulation of the creation whatsoever would be infinitely easy—but it seems infinitely difficult for some to see this.

Third, much unnecessary strain is caused by the hasty judgments of the Bible’s friends and foes alike. We cannot examine at all thoroughly all the problems growing out of the creation narrative (Genesis 1–3), for example; but this general statement is true, we believe: If every Bible scholar were careful not to read anything out of the Scripture teachings except what it indubitably teaches, and natural scientists were equally careful to claim nothing as scientifically established but what is indubitably true, the tensions between science and Scripture would be reduced to a negligible minimum. For example, the Bible does not teach that God created the world in 4004 B.C. As Gordon Clark has written, “We defend the inspiration of the Bible, not of Archbishop Ussher.”

These are merely a few samples of a few types of objections to the doctrine of inerrancy. There are many more types and there are many more answers. But this would seem to be a sufficient sampling for our purposes. A select and recommended bibliography may be found appended which will serve for further and more extensive investigation. In closing we should like to say only this: in the case of alleged discrepancies, it is not our burden to show how these may be reconciled as we have done above out of the “goodness of our hearts” and not the exigencies of our situation. We have given a case for the inerrancy of the Bible. Unless this case can be shown to be false, then it carries with it the guarantee that there are no discrepancies. We have, in other words, if our case is sound, shown that discrepancies are only apparent and must be reconcilable, even if we say not one word about how this reconciliation is to be shown. It behooves the opponent to prove us wrong by showing his “discrepancies” to be discrepancies incapable of harmonization. We have every reason to anticipate that he can succeed in so doing no better in the future than he has in the past because the Bible, we believe, is the inerrant Word of God.

Objections Arising from an Alleged “Docetism”

A very modern theological objection to inerrancy is an implied “Docetism.” Docetism refers to an early heresy denying the genuineness of Christ’s humanity. It maintained that Christ merely appeared (dokein) to be human. Inerrancy does essentially the same thing to the Bible, it is said, that the docetists did to Christ namely, deny its genuine humanness. “To err is human” and to be human is to err. If the Bible has no error it could not really have been written by men. Thus the human authors of the Bible, according to inerrancy, it is charged, only appear to have written the Bible. In brief, the argument runs thus:

Inerrancy teaches that the Bible authors could not err.
But humans can err.
Therefore, inerrancy implicitly teaches that the authors of the Bible were not human.

However, in this neat little syllogism they have neglected to observe a crucial part of the picture. Perhaps it will be clearest if we insert it where it belongs in the otherwise consistent syllogism:

Inerrancy teaches that the Bible authors could not err.
But humans can err (unless the omnipotent God preserves them from error without destroying their humanity). 
Therefore inerrancy implicitly teaches that the authors of the Bible were human (but we deny merely that their sinful erring tendencies were in operation during the writing of Holy Scripture).

Some may think that we here deny a principle we have defended above. There we said that God could not force the will of man without destroying man as man. Here we say that God can suspend the operation of human sinfulness without destroying the humanity of the persons concerned. The difference is this: freedom is essential to the nature of man but sinfulness is not. Remove freedom and man ceases to be; remove sinfulness and he does not cease to be a man (in fact, he is only perfectly human without sin).

Furthermore, there is a rather interesting inconsistency among most of our critics. While they deny that the Bible writers can be truly human while writing without error, they will not deny that Jesus could be truly human while living without error or even sin of any kind.

This criticism has the value of calling even greater attention to inerrancy’s insistence on the genuineness and indispensable importance of human participation in the writing of Scripture. While God’s part has been insisted on throughout this and most literature on the inspiration of the Bible, this is because it is so often challenged and is of such infinite importance. Sometimes in this stress on the divine, the human is, we regret to say, overlooked. Finally, some critics appear who claim that we deny the human role altogether. This calls forth our reiteration that the Bible is no less the word of man than it is the Word of God. But it is the word of men inspired by God. The Bible, then, is the Word of God expressed in the inspired words of men.

Excerpted from Primitive Theology by John H. Gerstner.

Twitter Highlights (5/1/11)

Here are some highlights from the various Ligonier Twitter feeds over the past week.

Ligonier The big picture in Hebrews is fairly straightforward. Put simply, it is "Jesus is the greatest." -Sinclair Ferguson



Tabletalk Magazine "The torture of a bad conscience is the hell of a living soul" - John Calvin.



Ligonier The alternative gospel of Joel Osteen forgoes the cross and advises us to merely "do our best." http://bit.ly/gRH3wX



Ligonier Academy There is no freedom apart from the Spirit of self-control.



Ligonier Man's glory is derived; he is dependent upon God's glory for his own. -R.C. Sproul



Reformation Trust The only thing that gets us into the kingdom of God, by which we participate in the gift of eternal life, is union with Christ Jesus -Sproul



Reformation Trust Our depravity is enormously creative and inventive, ever devising new ways of violating God’s will. -Joel Beeke

You can also find our various ministries on Facebook:
Ligonier Ministries | Ligonier Academy | Reformation Trust | Tabletalk Magazine

Killing Anger

In his column in the April edition of Tabletalk, John Piper writes this: "In marriage, anger rivals lust as a killer. My guess is that anger is a worse enemy than lust. It also destroys other kinds of camaraderie. Some people have more anger than they think, because it has disguises. When willpower hinders rage, anger smolders beneath the surface, and the teeth of the soul grind with frustration. It can come out in tears that look more like hurt. But the heart has learned that this may be the only way to hurt back."

He goes on to say that "one of the greatest battles of life is the battle to 'put away anger,' not just control its expressions." To that end, he offers a series of 9 biblical weapons that will help fight the battle.

You can read about those weapons in Killing Anger.

$5 Friday Sales on Holiness, Theology, Ethics & More

Time to load up your bookshelves. Find $5 Friday resources this week covering sanctification & spiritual growth, ethics, spiritual warfare & the devil, parenting, ethics, holiness, the five points of Calvinism, and how we are to live this side of heaven. Evangelical Ethics provided this week courtesy of P&R Publishing. Sale starts Friday at 8 a.m. and ends Saturday at 8 a.m. EST.

View today's $5 Friday sale.

An Interview with R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In addition to his presidential duties, Mohler hosts Thinking in Public, an interview forum about frontline theological and cultural matters; and The Briefing, which seeks to enable Christians to think biblically about current events. He has served as pastor and staff minister of several Southern Baptist churches and came to the presidency of Southern Seminary from service as editor of The Christian Index, the oldest of the state papers serving the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Mohler has served in several offices in the SBC, including a term as chairman of the Committee on Resolutions, which is responsible for the denomination’s official statements on moral and doctrinal issues. In 2000, Dr. Mohler served on a panel that made recommendations to the SBC for revisions to the Baptist Faith and Message, the statement of faith most widely held among Southern Baptists. He currently serves as chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Council of Seminary Presidents.

The April edition of Tabletalk featured an interview with Dr. Mohler. You can read it in Holding the Line: An Interview with R. Albert Mohler Jr..

VIDEO: CrossReference: Give Me Your Son

This week we bring you the fifth episode from CrossReference: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament, a new series from David Murray and HeadHeartHand on the appearances in the Old Testament.

You can watch the first two episodes here, and the remaining videos will be available for temporary viewing each week for the next six weeks at the Ligonier blog, Challies, and HeadHeartHand.

The DVD and study guide are now available for purchase. Or you can download the films in HD.

Episode 5: Give Me Your Son

Life From Death

The irony does not escape me that just days after we celebrate so earnestly the resurrection of Jesus, my dear bride begins the stem cell transplant process in our battle with leukemia. There will be a few days of sundry tests, but soon she will undergo what may be the most intense chemotherapy there is. She is in remission as I type, and God willing will be when that chemo starts. Why bury your body in chemical poison when there is no known cancer therein? Just what exactly are we trying to kill this time? White blood cells. Before we sought to kill what was killing her. Now we are seeking to kill what seeks to make her well.

The trouble with Denise’s white blood cells is that they are not up to the task. They are not able to make her well enough. Trusting in her own cells will lead to certain death. What she needs are the white blood cells of another. It is, frankly and literally, her only hope. Though her white blood cells do not have the power to make her well, they are still strong enough to fight off the white blood cells of another. That is why they must be destroyed. For Denise to live she has to give up fighting on her own, and put her trust in another.

Analogies always break down, and there is danger ahead, but let us still move forward. She is not sinless like Jesus. She is not suffering the wrath of the Father like Jesus. But Denise’s sister Susan is giving of herself, her own lifeblood, that her sister might live. She is making sacrifice, as are her seven children and godly husband. They are giving of their lives that my wife might live again. And like Jesus, they do so joyfully, out of love for her.

As we move out of this season of focused remembrance of the resurrection of Jesus, let us remember why we have this focus- that we would remember all year long. Resurrection is not something we will have done, but is the very air we breath. When we proclaim each day, “This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it” we are not merely speaking of His creational power. This is the day that the Lord, by walking out of that tomb, has remade. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. We live in the days of hope and promise. We live in the new creation.

Jesus has not promised that the difficult and painful process my dear wife is going through will give her forty more years to serve Him here. He has, however, promised that it will make her more like Him, that whatever the outcome, she will be beautified. He has promised that either way He will be holding her, dancing with her, laughing with her. Whatever the result, the resurrection wins. No, whatever the result, the Resurrected One wins His bride. He gave her to me. Each day I give her back. Each day He makes her more beautiful. Each day I give thanks. Every day is Resurrection Day. The Lord is risen. The Lord is risen indeed. Hallelujah.

The End of the World According to Harold Camping (Part 5)

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

Heresy on Salvation

Harold Camping has not only deserted the church, he seems also to have deserted Christ and his Gospel. In his online book The End of the Church…and After, he began to reject a number of teachings on salvation common in Reformed churches. Consider this strange amalgam of biblical truths and errors all of which Camping rejects as errors so serious that Christ has ended the church age because of them: “Such conclusions that there can be divorce for fornication, baptismal regeneration, our faith is an instrument that God uses to bring us to salvation, a future millennium, women can pastor a church, universal atonement, our acceptance of Christ as a requirement for salvation, are typical of many doctrines solemnly adopted by churches.” In this statement are indications of serious confusion on the doctrine of salvation.

Camping’s teaching reaches the status of heresy in his recent appeal to the world, “Judgment Day,” an eight page statement online. The saddest and most distressing element of Camping’s latest theological statement is that it is Christless. He does not write about Christ’s return, but about judgment day. In his eight pages of warning and call for repentance he writes only this of Christ: “Because God is so great and glorious He calls Himself by many different names. Each name tells us something about the glorious character and nature of God. Thus in the Bible we find such names as God, Jehovah, Christ, Jesus, Lord, Allah, Holy Spirit, Savior, etc. Names such as Jehovah, Jesus, Savior, and Christ particularly point to God as the only means by which forgiveness from all of our sins and eternal life can be obtained by God’s merciful and glorious actions.” Notice that Camping says nothing of the Trinity, writing as if Christ and the Holy Spirit are not distinct persons of the Trinity, but just different names for God. If Camping means this, then he is not a Trinitarian, but has adopted the ancient heresy of modalism. Notice also that there is no mention of the cross and Christ’s saving work for sinners. Forgiveness is nowhere linked to the work of the incarnate Christ. For Camping the mercy of God comes simply to the repentant. He never mentions faith in Christ. He also makes clear that those who cry for mercy might be saved. He offers no assurance of salvation: “Nevertheless, the Bible assures us that many of the people who do beg God for His mercy will not be destroyed.” Notice that not all, but only many who repent will be saved.

Camping’s presentation of God’s mercy is from beginning to end unbiblical and unchristian. He has no Trinity, no cross, no faith alone in Jesus alone, and no assurance. His vision of God and mercy is more Muslim than Christian. If Camping still believes in the Trinity, in Jesus and his cross, and in justification by faith alone, then his recent teaching shows that he is a failure as a teacher of the Gospel and his call to repentance lacks enough content for sinners to find salvation in Jesus.

Since Camping’s misuse of 2 Peter 3:8 is so crucial to his dating scheme, we should look carefully at the message of Peter in his second letter to see what he actually teaches about salvation, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. First, we see that Peter clearly distinguishes God the Father from God the Son as distinct persons of the Godhead (see 2 Peter 1:1, 2, 17). Second, Peter stresses the importance of knowing the truth of Jesus, not just God in general (see 2 Peter 1:8, 16; 2:20; 3:18). Peter makes clear the centrality of the cross in referring to those who “bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Peter 2:1). This statement of Peter is parallel to what he teaches in his first epistle: “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:18). Third, Peter stresses that the eternal kingdom is not just the kingdom of God in general, but specifically “the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:11). Finally, Peter points to the foundational function of faith in Jesus to the life of the Christian (see 2 Peter 1:1, 5).

Peter stresses the very distinctives of Christianity that are missing from Camping’s warning and teaching in “Judgment Day.” Camping’s failure to teach Christianity faithfully and fully and his misrepresentation of the Bible means that he is one of the false teachers against whom Peter warns Christians (2 Peter 2:1). Peter warned us against “they that are unlearned and unstable” who “wrest” Paul’s words “as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

When we read 2 Peter, we see that it is not part of a mystery book or puzzle. Peter writes clearly about the Gospel of Jesus and the danger of false teachers. Peter’s concerns in his second letter are to promote confidence in God’s Word, even though Jesus seems to some to be slow in returning, to encourage faith in Jesus the Savior, and to call Christians to holy living. Any one reading him carefully can see how utterly different is Peter’s teaching from Camping’s.

We can end our reflection on Camping’s teaching by remembering Jesus’ presentation of the Gospel in John 6 and Peter’s response to it. That Gospel offended many as Jesus taught on his work, on grace and on faith. Jesus then asked his disciples: “Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:67-69). Let us pray that Harold Camping and his followers will come to embrace the Gospel as Peter did.

Originally posted on the Westminster Seminary California Blog.

Suggested Resources:

Should We Leave Our Churches?: A Biblical Response to Harold Camping by Ligon Duncan & Mark Talbot
From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology by Keith Mathison
The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul

Worship Matters

John Starke writes, "Besides the preaching of God’s Word, there’s been much debate on what else we should do during our services." In response to a growing interest in the use of liturgical elements in worship, The Gospel Coalition recently posted a few responses to the question, "To what extent does your church use liturgical elements such as responsive readings and creeds? Why?" 

In light of this discussion, here are further resources to help address public worship, discernment in worship, the regulative principle of worship, legalism, liturgy, and Christian freedom. (All articles are taken from the July 2010 issue of Tabletalk Magazine, "Worship Matters".)

Burk Parsons on " Life and Worship Matters "

Many Christians are under the impression that worship is confined to those specific times of corporate worship when we’re singing. God’s Word, however, teaches us that singing is only one part of the worship service and that our prayers, affirmations, confessions of sin, Scripture readings, sermons, and singing are all parts of corporate worship.

R.C. Sproul on "When to Stop, When to Go, When to Slow Down"

In every age and in every culture, discerning the difference between that which God requires and prohibits for His people, and that which is indifferent, requires a significant knowledge of sacred Scripture, as well as an earnest desire to be obedient to the Lord.

Derek Thomas on "The Regulative Principle of Worship"

The regulative principle of worship states that the corporate worship of God is to be founded upon specific directions of Scripture. On the surface, it is difficult to see why anyone who values the authority of Scripture would find such a principle objectionable. 

R.J. Gore Jr. on "Adiaphora in Worship"

At what point does one cross the line from “connected to worship” to “significant part of worship”? For example, shall we accompany our singing with instruments? Should non-inspired hymns be sung or only psalms? Are choirs acceptable? Are these adiaphora? Or do they constitute a significant part of worship, thus exceeding the bounds of circumstances?

Richard Phillips on "No Room for Indifference"

The freedom for which Christ purchased us was not freedom to drink beer, watch movies, or play video games, but freedom from the curse of our sins. I praise God for Reformed theology’s faithfulness to the Bible’s teaching on Christian liberty in matters of indifference. But I do not glory in that freedom. 

Young Women, Idolatry & the Powerful Gospel

We are all inveterate worshipers — it’s just something we do without thinking about it. Worshiping is part of our nature because God created us to worship Him, and, by doing so, we bring both Him and ourselves deep pleasure (Pss. 16:11; 149:4). The world is full of worshipers, and some of them actually worship God. But the truth is that most of us worship idols.

We are all inveterate worshipers — it’s just something we do without thinking about it. Worshiping is part of our nature because God created us to worship Him, and, by doing so, we bring both Him and ourselves deep pleasure (Pss. 16:11; 149:4). The world is full of worshipers, and some of them actually worship God. But the truth is that most of us worship idols.

Keep Reading Young Women, Idolatry & the Powerful Gospel.