Not all Christians theologies–even some good ones!–hold that “the Bible”==”the Word of God” in a one-to-one correspondence. Inerrancy is a deduction (questionable, in my view) from the doctrine of inspiration. It is not an essential belief of the holy faith. It didn’t make the creeds, for instance.

I’m not interested in persuading anyone to move away from inerrancy, but its dangers in apologetics need to be realized. Michael brought out some of these in a post a few weeks ago. An apologetic centered around the a priori assumption of inerrancy is dangerous to the one witnessing and to the one being witnessed to. Our witness should not depend on how we interpret Gen. 1 (which I understand as absolutely beautiful doxology and theology but not science) or whether or not we can demonstrate the historicity of Esther.

A strong case can be made for the resurrection and the salvific value of the work of Christ, and some of the books mentioned above go into that case without recourse to appeals to inerrancy. We should accept that people can come to faith on that basis (Rom. 10:9-10), and once they are “in,” not insist that they accept full inerrancy in order to be true believers.

Another thing that I think may be useful in apologetics is the point that was made on one of the “theology unplugged” sessions regarding post-modernism. You described just to be honest with someone, by, in essence saying, “I can’t really “know” for sure, but this makes the most sense given the information we have and what most closely relates to reality.” Then you lead them through your line of reasoning, “this happened…, which caused this…, and this had to happen for this…, so you give the Biblical narrative (this is a scary thought considering the Bible is 85% narrative, might actually be reading it the way it is suppose to be read, lol) in a way that is understandable in a modern context.

Now to clarify, I am in no way saying that objective truth does not exist, by suggesting that “we can’t really know”, I am merely using the questioners understanding of the term “know”, which (normally) is derived from the use of the scientific method, so in that sense we cannot “know”, but then again, using that definition there are very few things we can “know” that have great value to the human being (i.e. emotions, the soul etc).

Anyways just my 2 cents.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

Many Christians, like myself, believe that the Genesis account was never meant to be read as strict literal historical narrative. The two accounts of Creation are two different tellings, in two different styles and for two different purposes and NEITHER of them are intended to give us a literal account or strict narrative of the events. They DESCRIBE historical events, things that happened in the past, but do so using symbolic, figurative and typological language. This should only be expected since it is the only way that people wrote and told stories about their past at the times these accounts were first told and first written.

What is being told to us in Genesis is a series of TRUE statements about the past (that God created all things, that God created with a plan and purpose, that God created Man in His image, that Mankind Fell, etc), but tells us these things in a way that is very different than we would write “history” today. So, it is entirely consistent for me to believe that everything Genesis is saying is absolutely true and to also believe that it is NOT describing a literal six day creation less that 10,000 years ago.

And, no, this does not open up any can on worms or put me on a slippery slope to “disbelief” of any other Scripture, since it is not disbelief of ANY Scripture to begin with. It is simply exegesis of what a particular Scripture is telling us. If we determine that Song of Songs was allegorical, we are not putting the rest of Scripture in doubt. If, as Calvin believed, Job was not true history, then this does not create any negative implication for the historicity of Acts or the resurrection.

We need to take each text on its own terms and determine the best reading. We start with the conclusion that Scripture is TRUE and even INERRANT (as properly defined), and then seek out what TRUTH is being given and how the text IS inerrant.

I believe many lines in the sand should be drawn, and many essentials need to be firmly held to. A strict literal narrative approach to Genesis 1 and 2, and the “young earth creationism” doctrines which derive out of that approach, are not one of them. And, if there are other, alternative opinions by honest, bible-believing Christians on this point, even if you think they are wrong, would it not be prudent to explain to the unbeliever that these other viewpoints DO exist? Yes, only one of us is right, or possibly neither of us is right, but to assert that your own interpretation MUST be correct and to draw your lines in the sand based on that interpretation seems dangerous in the extreme on a non-essential issue.

The scriptures have a single meaning. Genesis 1 and 2 CANNOT be read multiple different ways, all being accurate. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both “A” and “non-A” simultaneously. Genesis 1 and 2 have a single meaning. Whether we like it or not. Be it difficult to accept or not. If you allow yourself to this point, you open up to post modernism- which if you can believe whatever you want, what’s the point in arguing for Christ in the first place? If you open up a couple chapters to multiple meanings, you open the story of Christ to the same.

If the person that one is witnessing to is not concerned with Genesis 1 or 2, then you’re right, it is an unnecessary battle, because it is difficult.

The reason this line has been drawn is because modern science has taken us there. If we do not stand up to the challenge, we essentially condemn a soul to eternal death- and who are we to make that determination?

God has given us many powerful resources to bring His Chosen people (even the most doubt-ridden) to Him. We do NOT need to compromise God’s very nature to appease a relentlessly doubting culture just because we are afraid of a difficult challenge. If we do, we deny who God is and what potential work He has started in us.

In fact, I think it does great harm. If you agree with the proposition presented by the secular world that “if Genesis 1 is not accurate literal history, then you can’t trust any part of Scripture”, you are buying into a false dichotomy and an unnecessary apologetic battle (and one I believe can not be won). I think it is more powerful apologetics to assert that there are various possible ways to read Genesis 1 and 2, many of which do not contradict modern scientific thought. Regardless of which approach the Christian apologist takes, this is still a true statement: these alternative approaches do exist.

By taking this position, you are arguing for the TRUTH of Scripture REGARDLESS of the scientific conclusions, and thus opening a path to belief in Scripture for those who DO accept the scientific models of our past.

Why draw a line in the sand where none is needed? It seems like you can be creating a stumbling block to the Faith on an issue that is not essential.

Now, back to witnessing to people outside the faith…it is our responsibility to accept challenges from sincere unbelievers and defend our faith head-on. But we should not be so over zealous that we do damage to our witness. We must conduct our research thoroughly and defend responsibly- letting no deception to be found in us.

Another thing, you have to realize that being that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, in the end it will be found to be accurate in all areas. It is against God’s very nature to deceive His followers (or anyone for that matter). As science and archeology have progressed, the Bible has received more evidence for it than against it. This is a trend that will continue.

I’d love to write more but it’s very late over here. Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ.

The resurrection can be shown to historically defensible if we simply take the 27 ancient documents that you and I call the New Testament along with the dozens of other historical references of the first century and put them to the test of historical verification. If the unbeliever is unwilling to do this, then they have no right to make judgments upon ANY historical issue. Their bias is their guide, not objective historical inquiry.

Hope that makes sense.

Many people already know the story of Jesus’ resurrection. Many academics question its validity because of other stories, such as is written in Genesis 1. The Bible is not a reliable source to them. Why should they believe anything written in the Gospels? They argue that if Genesis 1 is inaccurate, then the whole text must be suspect and therefore cannot believe the resurrection.

We don’t need to spend time solely on the resurrection. If we insist on spending time only there, then people will think we are trying to hide something, and that will drive them farther away.

I like to use Genesis 1 and all the scientific evidence to point to the fact that they can trust what is written in the Bible. I then point them toward Christ’s resurrection.

I believe that it is very important that we establish the Bible as a reliable source first. Then we can point to the specific message.

No, believing that Creation happened a certain way or in a certain amount of time is not essential to our Salvation. But it is essential to proving to the most educated and influential people that the Bible can be trusted, and THAT will lead to the essential belief of Christ’s resurrection.

Great questions Nick. How does the resurrection have the meanings I tied to it?

I think the answer comes when you ask the question Why? Asking this of the other pseudo-apologetics that I mentioned leaves us with very inconclusive answers. Yet with the resurrection, the answers are inherently tied to the event. The event is the Gospel. Why did Christ rise from the grave? To substantiate his claims (of deity) and become the first fruits of those who would follow. But the resurrection is tied to His death. Why did Christ die? Because we are sinners, God loves us, and God is righteous, therefore, we needed a substitute.

In short, if the resurrection happened, the entire Gospel is substantiated. If it did not happen, the entire Gospel is false.

Does that make sense?

You said:

The resurrection means something. If the resurrection truly happened it means that God is real, holy and righteous, we are sinners in need of a substitute, God really does love you more than you can imagine, there is a future for those who have trusted in Christ, and heaven is real.

Now I personally agree with this but just to play devil’s advocate for a moment I can see someone who is not persuaded by the arguments for Christianity based on the resurrection asking WHY all those things follow if the resurrection is true.

How does it follow that if Christ was resurrected that we are sinners in need of a substitute?

How does it follow that if Christ was raised God really exists and possesses those attributes?

How do we know that God loves us simply because he raised his Son from the dead?

How does resurrection prove this place called heaven?

Something to ponder…

Also, I agree completely with Michael here. Having been raised in a pentecostal environment (and still attending a pentecostal church for a variety of familial and politic reasons), I have seen too many people base their faith on the “experience” rather than the “rock”.

But, just because I like being this way . . .

I have seen at least one respected Christian scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson, indicate that the LITERAL, BODILY resurrection need not have taken place as so many of us understand it. He claims in need not have been physical “resuscitation” of the dead body, but something “else” (I have not quite got a handle on what he is asserting here). I completely disagree with him on this point, but he is a wonderful scholar on many other points and I do respect his teaching in general. So, even on that most “core” of beliefs, faithful Christians can have differing “nuances”.

I haven’t revisted any of McDowell’s work in several years. At the time I read them I wasn’t aware or cognizant of his limitations. I think my recommendation should be taken with Sean’s caveat.

Thanks,
ChadS

Luke 11:29 “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah”

But I’m reminded of Thomas who would not believe that Christ had risen from the dead until he put his hands in the nail marks. John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

We will be more blessed for having believed without seeing than because of a sign or miracle that caused us to believe.

Lessing’s “ugly ditch” in reference to the contingency of historical knowledge need to be respected. Whether we view it as very narrow or quite broad, its existence cannot be denied.