CMP, another ironic aspect of “pancake apologetics” might be the tendency of its adherents to “waffle” on their assertions . . . or maybe not! ;^)

[...] don’t know. It sounds like folk theology to me as well. As I said in a previous blog, this type of mindset is common no matter where you are. In other words, it is not an East or West [...]

I agree wholeheartedly with Vance’s post #20 and most of 22.

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.

Michael,

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

Luke, I see no contradiction in Genesis and I only read it one way, and I agree that there is only one CORRECT way of reading it. But, there are different approaches regarding what that correct way actually is. Christians differ on this issue.

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.

Vance, if you don’t believe what happened in Genesis actually happened, then how can you say that you “believe everything Genesis says”?

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.

I am with Sean on this one. The problem with starting with Genesis 1 for me is that I DON’T believe that it was written as strict literal history or as a scientific explanation of what happened. I believe everything Genesis says, I just don’t think it says what many other Christians think it says. And, I think that attempting to establish the veracity of the Bible’s historicity based on a text that was not meant to be strict literal history is the wrong way to go.

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.

Sean, that’s a very good point. But we are talking about two different things here. You mention someone who already believes. Which, if their faith is shaken, it is the church’s (you and me) responsibility to build them back up firmly. Many times, throwing away something you believe, then reformulating it based on facts will make your belief much stronger and pull you away from false folk theology and tabloid theology. If a fellow believer questions what they believe, it is an opportunity to provide them with a stronger foundation and a more reliable witness. In light of the Great Commission, this should not be feared.

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.

For clarity, that post was directed towards the area of conversation initiated by Luke. Good night.

But there are some of us believers who have more confidence in the resurrection accounts than we do in Gen. 1, and a lot more confidence in it than in some of the OT history passages of questionable morality. The Bible is a very diverse book of books, the inspired witness to God’s revelation and work of redemption, and not all the different events it records have been or can be substantiated to the same degree. The problem with the evangelical paradigm of strict verbal inspiration and total inerrancy is the tendency towards “False in one, false in all.” We should not set up our apologetic preaching so that one who once believed may come to disbelieve in the resurrection because later in life he or she finds the evidence for evolution compelling or encounters doubts about the accuracy of the accounts of the conquest of Canaan. This sadly sometimes happens.

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