*This is a rapid fire piece. I have so many ideas backlogged and I want to put something out each month, but I just can't bring myself to write a ton of full-length pieces. I decided to start a less formal format where I quickly lay out some thoughts I had. These pieces are often first thoughts, and should be taken with an even bigger grain of salt than pieces I've spent more time on.
Most Christians believe in some sort of progressive revelation. God didn't reveal all of himself at one time, but rather revealed more and more truths about himself and his plan over time. This seems like a clear fact considering the perfect revelation we get in Jesus, which was thousands of years in the making, but it also makes moral sense. We, as parents, don't hold our kids to the same standards we'd hold adults, as they are just learning to deal with morality and expectations. Had God given humanity immediate justice and held us to full expectations, sin would have destroyed us all. But God is gracious and patient with us.
But for those who hold to inerrancy, as my group does, this idea of progressive revelation seems to be a problem. The thinking on inerrancy is that the truth of God's word is so important, that there can be no imperfection in the words of God. God had to ensure that the Bible was not only initially transmitted perfectly, but that it was maintained perfectly - at least in regard to the main ideas (some allowance is made for grammar and syntax differences, as the Bible is undeniably errant in this regard as evidenced by a plethora of divergent manuscripts). The thinking is that what God says is so important and vital for us, that he couldn't have failed to transmit his words perfectly.
However, there's a double standard at play here. The issue is that our idea of inerrancy is applied to the syntax and data, but not to understanding. This is a problem for all Christians who hold to inerrancy, but especially for Reformed Christians who believe that God has control even over hearts and minds. What we are essentially saying is that syntactical/dative inerrancy is so important that God ensured an inerrant text, yet the content wasn't important enough that he ensured inerrant understanding. The physical Bible is inerrant, but God's communication skills are extremely errant as proven by the multitude of people who either don't believe in him, or who deviate from what he intended to convey in their various denominations and sects.
If inerrancy of the physical text is important, then certainly inerrancy of comprehension is important. If God knows how to communicate - and especially if God has control over hearts and minds - then one would expect that something like progressive revelation would not exist. God could have zapped information into brains like a pensieve, he could have communicated more forthrightly, or he could have changed hearts and minds and made the blind to see. I have to ask myself, then, why one sort of inerrancy is important to me, the syntacitcal/dative, while the other, arguably more important aspect of inerrancy of comprehension, is not.
But for those who hold to inerrancy, as my group does, this idea of progressive revelation seems to be a problem. The thinking on inerrancy is that the truth of God's word is so important, that there can be no imperfection in the words of God. God had to ensure that the Bible was not only initially transmitted perfectly, but that it was maintained perfectly - at least in regard to the main ideas (some allowance is made for grammar and syntax differences, as the Bible is undeniably errant in this regard as evidenced by a plethora of divergent manuscripts). The thinking is that what God says is so important and vital for us, that he couldn't have failed to transmit his words perfectly.
However, there's a double standard at play here. The issue is that our idea of inerrancy is applied to the syntax and data, but not to understanding. This is a problem for all Christians who hold to inerrancy, but especially for Reformed Christians who believe that God has control even over hearts and minds. What we are essentially saying is that syntactical/dative inerrancy is so important that God ensured an inerrant text, yet the content wasn't important enough that he ensured inerrant understanding. The physical Bible is inerrant, but God's communication skills are extremely errant as proven by the multitude of people who either don't believe in him, or who deviate from what he intended to convey in their various denominations and sects.
If inerrancy of the physical text is important, then certainly inerrancy of comprehension is important. If God knows how to communicate - and especially if God has control over hearts and minds - then one would expect that something like progressive revelation would not exist. God could have zapped information into brains like a pensieve, he could have communicated more forthrightly, or he could have changed hearts and minds and made the blind to see. I have to ask myself, then, why one sort of inerrancy is important to me, the syntacitcal/dative, while the other, arguably more important aspect of inerrancy of comprehension, is not.
RSS Feed