Category: Theology

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

Words are Sacraments and Sacraments are a Kind of Word

In other words, for Luther, the Eucharist (and by implication Baptism as well), confirms for the individual what the word universally proclaims. The word of the gospel is addressed to everyone in the congregation, and therefore it is possible to worry that this promise may not apply to you as an individual, or you have not genuinely received it by faith. Nevertheless, the Lord’s Supper contains within it the same promise and presence of the risen Jesus as the sermon. For Luther, words are sacraments and sacraments are a kind of word. The difference between the sermon and the sacrament is that the latter is applied to the individual who directly receives it. When reflective faith invariably worries about whether or not one has individually received Jesus and his promise of forgiveness, the believer may rely on the sacraments to give them assurance. There can be here no doubt that you have personally received the promise in the form of the sacrament since it was you as an individual who heard the promise and consumed the elements. By receiving the Eucharistic elements, the promise and presence of Jesus are given to you as an in tangible and physical way that draws you out of your subjectivity and enthusiasm (Did I truly believe? Did I truly receive the promise?) to the objectivity of the gospel.

The Word Present For You in the Lord’s Supper

From the draft manuscript for Jack D. Kilcrease, Justification by Word: Restoring Sola Fide (Lexham Press, 2022), 303-304.

Image from “Icon-of-Christ-the-Holy-Communion,” Catholic Stewardship Consultants, August 2, 2018, https://www.catholicsteward.com/2018/08/02/stewardship-bulletin-reflection-august-19-2018/icon-of-christ-the-holy-communion/.

Posted on

Luther On Christ’s Substantial Eucharistic Presence For You

The gospel is a unilateral divine self-donation, in that an unconditional promise means a gift of the promiser himself in order to fulfill the terms of the promise. Therefore, Christians who receive the unilateral promise of the gospel are heirs to Christ’s very sacrificed person as a guarantee that he is at their disposal to fulfill his promise. This means that through the promise of the gospel we inherit Christ and everything that he possesses. Indeed, as Paul states, all true believers in union with Christ are “fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17). This reality is manifest in the Lord’s Supper wherein Christ wills his very physical being (body and blood) through which he brought salvation to believers. Therefore, to paraphrase Luther, in dying Jesus gives the inheritance of his body and blood to believers in order that they might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life through his promise attached to them.1

Returning to On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther’s second major difficulty with the medieval conception of the Eucharist is the doctrine of transubstantiation.2 The doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper are transformed by the words of institution into the body and blood of Christ, although the outward appearance and qualities of bread and wine (Aristotelian “accidents”) remain intact.3 Although Luther affirmed the substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, he disliked the doctrine of transubstantiation the because it contradicts 1 Corinthians 10:16 which states that the bread and wine remain in the Lord’s Supper as the medium by which one receives Christ’s substantial body and blood.4 Luther considers the entire idea of transubstantiation an Aristotelian rationalization of the mystery of how the body and blood of Christ can become present through the bread and the wine.5

Continue reading “Luther On Christ’s Substantial Eucharistic Presence For You”