Category: Scripture

Posted on

Inerrancy and Science Part 2: What if Scripture and Science Seemingly Disagree?

Theology and science are not hermetically sealed off from one another. Theologians should strive to find agreement between contemporary science and the teachings of Scripture. All truth is one (since it comes from God!), and one should expect that when humans investigate nature and other fields of inquiry with right reason, there should ultimately be no conflict with Scripture. We should also note that, contrary to Matthew Becker’s misrepresentations, Francis Pieper actually shared this sentiment. In the passage in Christian Dogmatics in which he rejects heliocentrism, Pieper also expresses hope that Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity would in fact vindicate geocentricism.1 It did not, of course, but Pieper was not the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific Fundamentalist Becker portrays.

Obviously, although human beings are finite and have damaged noetic capacities due to sin, we are still competent to gain some knowledge of the created world. Still, as the Reformed theologian Keith Mathison observes, our finitude and fallenness make us capable of making mistakes in our interpretations of both scientific data and the Bible.2 Consequently, just as when Scripture properly understood can expose the errors of science, scientific truth when pitted against a particular interpretation of Scripture may prompt the interpreter to rethink his reading of the text. Perhaps a particular traditional interpretation and not the genuine teaching of Scripture itself may be the barrier to seeing agreement between certain historical or scientific facts and the text. But if there is no way to reconcile certain scientific claims with the text understood on the basis of the literal sense and the analogy of faith, then Scripture must rule supreme. Damaged and finite human reason cannot place a priori limitations on what the Word of God can and cannot say.

In a later section on science and theology Becker protests against this perspective. He asserts that, generally speaking, our knowledge of scientific facts must almost always be correct. If it were not, then God would be attempting to fool us by giving us access to faulty data through our minds and senses.3 One could of course equally point out that if one accepted the premise, based on science, that Scripture was errant, God would also be guilty of deceiving His people by giving them a record of His revelation which mixed together error and truth without any means of separating them. At another point, Becker states that he would like to see mutuality, cooperation, and dialogue between theology and science.4 However, he ultimately asserts that if science says that Scripture is wrong, Scripture must simply bow to the superior wisdom of science and modify its claims. In this vein Becker tells us that we can no longer believe that death is the result of sin (Romans 5), since the theory of biological evolution presupposes that death is simply another cog in the cosmic machine of life.

Such a perspective is problematic for several reasons. 

To be continued…..

Part 1 available here; Part 3 available here; Part 4 available here; and Part 5 available here

[1] Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), 1:473–74.

[2] Keith Mathison, A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2013).

[3] Matthew Becker, Fundamental Theology: A Protestant Perspective (New York: T & T Clark, 2014), 440.

[4] Becker, Fundamental Theology, 446–47.

Adapted from Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Gifford A. Grobien, ed. (Fort Wayne, IN: The Luther Academy, 2020), 113-114.

Image from “Multimedia / Science And The Bible,” The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, https://www.faraday.cam.ac.uk/resources/multimedia-category/science-and-the-bible/.

Posted on

Inerrancy and Science Part 1: Turns of Phrase and Poetic Expressions

Some theologians, such as Matthew Becker, argue against the doctrine of inerrancy by complaining that the doctrine has been used to promote what they consider to be anti-scientific views. For example, Becker derides Francis Pieper’s rather eccentric position (at least by the standards of the early twentieth century) that scriptural inerrancy entails the rejection of heliocentrism.1 According to Becker, on the one hand Pieper is indeed correct that the Bible teaches geocentricism, while on the other he should be faulted for not seeing that this teaching flatly contradicts scientific facts and therefore this disproves the inerrancy of the Bible. Ultimately for Becker, one should simply accept that the Bible is in error with regard to many scientific things. One notable example of Scripture’s “errors” would be its references to the “pillars of the earth” (1 Sm 2:8; Jb 9:6).

In response to this, let us first note that Pieper’s position was a rather eccentric one even for the theologians of scholastic orthodoxy. As we saw earlier, the Lutheran scholastics accepted a notion of inerrancy compatible with the idea that Scripture often described things as they appear (“the sun is setting”) rather than in literal scientific descriptions of the world.2 This understanding does not undermine inerrancy or the scientific accuracy of scriptural statements any more than contemporary people lie when speaking in the same manner (“the sun is setting”). They are not speaking a falsehood but using a turn of phrase.3

Beyond using turns of phrase, the Bible also uses many poetic expressions. One can view references to the “pillars of the earth” as poetic in the same way that the “setting of the sun” is merely a turn of phrase. Much as contemporary poets do not base their language of nature on quantifiable scientific descriptions of the universe, neither did the biblical poets, notably in the Psalms or Job. Indeed, as Peter Leithart has pointed out, language like “pillars of the earth” has the very specific theological/poetic function of describing creation in non-literal terms as a cosmic temple.4 Ultimately, trying to take poetic descriptions of nature by the biblical authors as scientific propositions of that era is a highly questionable procedure.

To be continued….

Part 2 available here; Part 3 available here; Part 4 available here; and Part 5 available here

[1] Matthew Becker, Fundamental Theology: A Protestant Perspective (New York: T & T Clark, 2014), 268–69.

[2] Robert Preus, The Theology of Post–Reformation Lutheranism, 2 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970–1972), 1:355.

[3] Adolf Hoenecke, Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics, trans. Joel Fredrich et al., 4 vols. (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1999–2009), 1:438.

[4] Peter Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), 43–45.

Adapted from Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Gifford A. Grobien, ed. (Fort Wayne, IN: The Luther Academy, 2020), 112-113.

Image from “Heliocentrism,” https://www.meteorologiaenred.com/en/heliocentrism.html.

Posted on

The Historicity of Faith vs. Enthusiasm

Although Christians accept Christ, the resurrection, and the authority of the Scripture not on the basis of historical evidence, there is a significant amount of empirical evidence that validates these realities.47 Because Christ and His lordship have authorized the Scriptures and because this authorization is vindicated along with His lordship in the resurrection, it logically follows that there is a secondary empirical basis for arguing in favor of the supreme authority of Scripture.48

In the light of this witness of history, Nicolaus Hunnius correctly observed that when compared to other scriptures or bodies of religious teaching that claim an analogous authority, the Bible validates itself by its reliability.49 Although Hunnius lived in the early seventeenth century and lacked access to the fruits of modern historical research, he was able to cite correctly the fulfillment of Scripture’s prophecies as a means by which the triune God reveals Himself to be faithful in concrete and objective history. As we have seen, the resurrection is an especially powerful demonstration of this principle. So the Christian faith is grounded in historically accessible events to which faith gains access by way of the Spirit’s work in objective means of grace. The believer is drawn out of his natural Enthusiasm into a concrete, historical reality extra nos. Since the salvation Christians believe in is historical and objective, the possibility of any return to Enthusiasm and its corollary, self-justification, is cut off to them.

[47] See Gerald O’Collins, Believing in the Resurrection: The Meaning and Promise of the Risen Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 2012), 126; Gary R. Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishers, 2004), 72–75, 169, 289; Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove,IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 349–55; John Warwick Montgomery, Tracatus Logico-Theologicus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013), 135–50.

[48] See similar argument in John Warwick Montgomery, Where Is History Going? Essays in Support of the Historical Truth of the Christian Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969),179.

[49] Nicolaus Hunnius, Epitome Credendorum, trans. Paul Gottheil (Nuremburg: U. E. Sebald, 1847), 3–15.

From Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Gifford A. Grobien, ed. (Fort Wayne, IN: The Luther Academy, 2020), 100-101.

Image from Emanuel Paparella, “What do Scholars say about Jesus’ Resurrection: is it just a Myth?,” Modern Diplomacy, June 6, 2016, https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2016/06/06/what-do-scholars-say-about-jesus-resurrection-is-it-just-a-myth/.

Posted on

Review of The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth by Beth Allison Barr

Guest Post by Dcs. Ellie Corrow and Dr. Bethany Kilcrease

Part III: The Second Part of Our Epic Critique

Making of Biblical Womanhood presents several convincing historical arguments that deconstruct the assumed uniformity of biblical womanhood throughout the church’s history, but Barr falters when attempting to address modern controversies of the twentieth century.  Barr’s conclusion that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy “became important because it provided a way to push women out of the pulpit” may well be true.1  Barr does show evidence of correlation.  But she did not present enough evidence to convince us that this was in fact a case of causation, that inerrancy became important primarily because it served as a helpful item in the patriarchal toolkit and not merely that promotion of inerrancy and the solidification of “biblical womanhood” among evangelicals happened to occur around the same time.  We suspect Barr is correct, but we would have liked to have seen more evidence.

Additionally, Barr’s argument regarding inerrancy is built around an insufficiently nuanced doctrine of inerrancy.  One way to think about the doctrine of inerrancy is to make it the foundation of one’s belief system.  This is common among both fundamentalists and evangelicals.  According to this line of thinking, Christians believe in the Bible because it is inerrant.  Since the Bible is inerrant, Christians believe everything it says about Jesus and can trust Him.  Therefore, if inerrancy is undermined, by, for example, questioning Paul’s directives regarding women, all of Christianity comes crashing down.  A better, and we would argue more biblical, approach is to begin with Christ.  We believe in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.  His divine authority then leads us to trust His authorized Scriptures completely.2  In this way, inerrancy flows from belief in Christ, rather than belief in Christ resting precariously on inerrancy.

I think we know someone who recently published the definitive confessional Lutheran dogmatic work on this topic….

Unfortunately, this dismissal of inerrancy as a tool of the patriarchy leaves Barr vulnerable to the argument that she rejects complementarianism because she rejects the authority of Scripture, which would be an unfair characterization of her work.  In an earlier chapter, for example, she invites the reader to reexamine Paul’s writing on women by way of cultural and historical context, whereas someone less committed to the veracity of Scripture might either argue for non-Pauline authorship or blatant rejection of difficult passages.  However, despite her problematic approach to inerrancy, Barr’s broader point that inerrancy has been weaponized against women has validity. Indeed, literalist readings of 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14 are often used a litmus test for biblical faithfulness, whereas other Pauline texts that are not directed specifically at women rarely receive the same sort of rigid application.

Continue reading “Review of The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth by Beth Allison Barr”
Posted on

Homologoumena and Antilegomena

Historically, Lutherans have made a distinction within the canonical books of the New Testament between the homologoumena and antilegomena. As noted above, the distinction refers to the division between the books of the New Testament that were affirmed unanimously by the witness of the early church as being written by the apostles, and those that were not thus affirmed. Among the first class (homologoumena) are reckoned the Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 Peter, and 1 John. Among the second class (antilegomena) are reckoned Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.[1]

It is important to recognize that for Lutherans the antilegomena does not relate to the undisputed books of the New Testament in the manner that the Apocrypha relates to the Old Testament proper. Whereas the Apocrypha is not considered the Word of God because it was not authorized as such by Christ, the antilegomena may be apostolic in origin, but that origin is disputed….

Throughout our discussion we have consistently emphasized the centrality of Christ’s promise of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Belief in inspiration is therefore derivative of our faith in Christ and His historical reality, mediated to us by the power of the Spirit as active in the Word and Sacrament ministry of the church.[2] For this reason we should not abandon the distinction between the antilegomena and the homologoumena. The canon of Scripture must be grounded in the actual authorship (or at least authorization) of a prophet or apostle, because Christ has attached His promise of inspiration to them alone.

Our approach to discerning the canon is thus quite different from that of the Reformed and Roman Catholic traditions, both of which tend to distance the work of the Spirit from the external Word, albeit in different ways. In the Reformed tradition the canon is established mainly on the basis of the subjective reality of the inner testimony of the Spirit.[3] Catholicism holds that the Spirit- guided (Roman Catholic) Church can establish the canon by fiat. Both assume that the Spirit makes the canon discernible not through the objective historical promise of Christ but through the interior work of the Spirit. Both represent Enthusiasm, albeit in different forms: one individualist (Reformed) and the other authoritarian (Catholicism). In contrast to all this, the historic Lutheran approach insists upon the unity of the Word and the Spirit, that is, the objective principle (apostolicity and the historical promise of Christ) with the subjective principle (the inner testimony of the Spirit).

For this reason, to the extent that certain texts are of mixed attestation or face other credible challenges to their apostolic origin, we cannot treat them as possessing the status of primary canonicity. Of course this does not mean that our judgment on this issue must remain static. Indeed, over time our judgment may change in the light of the evidence….

Nevertheless, even if the authorship of the antilegomena is historically ambiguous, as Gerhard properly notes, it does not mean that the divinity of the content itself is ambiguous. That is to say, even if the antilegomena possesses mixed attestation regarding authorship, we may still recognize its content as being the Word of God in the light of its agreement with the apostolic content of the homologoumena. As we saw in an earlier chapter, when the church preaches in accordance with the teachings of the prophets and apostles, that too is a proper form of the Word of God. So the antilegomena may be understood at minimum as the proclaimed Word of God even if there is some ambiguity as to whether or not it is the directly inspired Word of God.

Ultimately, though, the antilegomena must remain distinct from the homologoumena. To establish doctrine we must look to the fountain of truth (that is, the inspired books of the Bible themselves) and only secondarily to the stream (subsequent preaching of the church). As in a stream of water, the stream of doctrine may become mixed together with muck while the fountain remains pure and clear. For this reason we also stand in moderate agreement with Chemnitz. While not totally rejecting the canonicity of the antilegomena, we affirm the interpretative primacy of the sedes doctrinae found in the homologoumena.[4] This rule is a logical outgrowth of the primacy of the apostles and their infallible witness over that of the post-apostolic church. Hence, just as the New Testament clarifies the meaning of the Old, the homologoumena should be seen as possessing the ability to clarify the content of the antilegomena.

[1] Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 308–10.

[2] John Warwick Montgomery writes: “Note that we do not argue that the Bible must be divine revelation because it is inerrant; we argue, rather, that it must be a divine revelation because Jesus, who proves himself to be God, declares that it is such—and he regarded it as inerrant.” Montgomery, Tracatus Logico-Theologicus, 146.

[3] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7.1 and 1.7.4, in Calvin: The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. and ed. John T. McNeill and Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967), 1:74–75, 78–80; Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 25–26.

[4] Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent 1:189.

From Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Gifford A. Grobien, ed. (Fort Wayne, IN: The Luther Academy, 2020), 174-175, 179-180, 180-181.