Luke's Response to Aaron

Aaron, I appreciate your comments. I think Baptists (and other Christians for that matter) should focus on the essentials of the faith. There is much shared ground which should provide the basis for cooperation. I believe there is enough shared ground between moderates, fundamentalists and even liberals that there could and should be more cooperation. But there are differences nonetheless and it is a benefit to the body of Christ to address them. You point to an important observation that I would like to clarify. I do not agree that I am making a false dichotomy between the agency of revelation and the content of the faith. But let me first define the term inerrancy. I understand the term to mean, "when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social physical, or life sciences." By asserting that everything affirmed in scripture is “entirely true” broadens the scope of scripture beyond its intended or necessary purposes. Let me make the caveat I am not saying that inerrancy is wrong. I am saying that it is a theological affirmation that goes beyond the central proclamation of the gospel. I think it is this going beyond the central claims that blurs what is most important and leads to squabbling and dissension about matters that while interesting are not of greatest importance. What is more it can become a stumbling block to the faith. For this reason if for no other one should willingly consider some of what one’s brothers and sisters in the faith are recognizing in this theological affirmation. Let me take two specific examples to demonstrate this the creation accounts of Genesis 1-2, and Jesus' last words on the cross.
Genesis 1:6"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters. This verse serves as an example of the condescension we find in Divine Revelation. By condescension I mean that God meets us and reveals himself to us despite our limitations. With regards to this specific verse some argue that one finds a typical Ancient Near Eastern cosmology in this account of creation. The expanse which provides for space is surrounded by water. The fact that our cosmology has changed does not take away from the significance of the account for God speaks into existence this space in which we move and have our being. Using the definition I have provided of inerrancy, one would a priori reject such an interpretive position.

Jesus' last words on the cross as recorded in the gospel of Luke and Mark provide a second example. In Mark's account 15:34 Jesus' last words are "eloi eloi la ma sabachthani? Which is being interpreted My God My God Why hast thou forsaken me?" In Luke's account (23:46) we find" And when Jesus had cried with aloud voice, he said, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." One common approach to the different descriptions of Jesus last words is to simply posit that he said both things Mark records one Luke another. It is a possibility, but it is not the only possible interpretative suggestion. In fact Barth Erhman the infamous agnostic argues that the difficulties of this account are a typical example of why he left the faith. According to Erhman Luke and Mark can not both be the last words of Jesus. I recently attended a debate between Erhman and Richard Hays. Hays agrees with Erhman that we cannot know what Jesus last words were, but he counters we can accept that both Luke and Mark are in fact faithful witnesses to who Jesus is. Mark quotes Psalm 22 as Jesus’ last words capturing the messianic motif of the lamb stricken for the sins of all. Luke simply places a different Psalm (31) on the lips of Jesus. This presents the motif of the faithful servant offering himself willingly to the Father. Both of these Psalms truthfully bear witness to Jesus’ act. Hays is not advocating that one may read anything one wants to in the texts. One cannot simply choose to either harmonize the texts or interpret them in his suggested way. He would assert there is one true correct interpretation.

Now how can we separate revelation from the content of the faith? God acts in history. Our faith is based in the historical acts of God in history. Scripture is the record of these acts. Scripture leads us to the knowledge of the Triune God. Now let me return to my central thesis and reaffirm a few important things. I am not proposing or arguing for an "errant"bible. Nor am I advocating for the interpretations I have made reference to. I use these two examples to demonstrate how according to the definition of inerrancy I have provided (some may take issue with that definition and if you do please suggest another) either of these interpretations would not be considered valid. If either of these interpretations is in fact correct (I do accept that either of these approaches could be correct) then inerrancy instead of helping one faithfully interpret the text would in fact serve as a hindrance and serve as a presupposition that leads one into error.