One advantage of the blogosphere is the world that it opens up to one without lots of peers to dialogue with. And the peers in the blogosphere come in many more sizes and shapes than one would likely find in a faculty dining room anyhow. This makes for an (usually) enjoyable experience of education, with less of the formality that one sees in books and journals. When it’s not necessarily enjoyable is when one reads the slams by educated, otherwise respectable, individuals. I have “learned” that I must be a complete idiot to believe the Bible is a reliable historical record. And I have “learned” that I clearly have no idea how to interpret Scripture if I hold to a pre-tribulational, pre-millennial view of the end times. Of course these things are not new and fill many volumes of books. But one is more likely to be confronted with these “truths” on a daily basis in the blogosphere.
Ultimately there is a single reason for why I hold to both inerrancy and dispensationalism: I believe the Bible means what it says. You don’t have to hold to inerrancy, but you cannot deny that Scripture presents itself as a factual, accurate, and detailed account of history. You don’t have to hold to dispensationalism (how I hate that word), but you cannot deny that on the face of it, Scripture describes a complex record of God’s dealings with Israel and the church and future, yet unfulfilled, promises for the ethnic descendants of Abraham. You don’t have to believe it, but you have to admit that this is the most natural reading of all of the texts.
Let me say it another way: if you reject either of the above, you do so because of external factors. If you reject inerrancy, it is because you believe that something outside the text shows that it cannot be true. If you reject what is known as the dispensationalist view, it is because you believe that a few texts should externally control and re-define many other texts.
I believe I am consistent, then, in taking the text literally. Many scholars reject both inerrancy and a dispensational eschatology and they are consistent also, I believe. I don’t deny that there are difficulties in believing that the Bible means what it says. But they are not troublesome. And compared with the massive difficulties that one encounters in the other approaches, I am quite happy to wrestle with them.
Amen Todd. Thanks for this post. You nailed the point :-).
Blessings in Israel,
Geoff
This is so important to hold firmly to in a society where pluralism is so prevalent, as well as in a Christian culture, which is quickly slipping away from the literal. Thanks for the clear explanation, Todd.
Todd, I’ve always admired you as an archaeologist precisely for this stance you take. You’re never willing to accept a finding that contradicts scripture just because it’s the easy out, and invariable you’re proved right.
I too believe the people who wrote the bible meant what they said, but I also believe that God is bigger than the Bible (as well as our present “interpretations” of what it says) and that he often spoke through people who had no idea of what they were talking about. When science or psychology or sociology or even current understandings of the gospel itself (read The Holy Spirit) dictate a new understanding of the inspired word, shouldn’t we at the very least listen to what’s being said by other thoughtful Christians or else run the risk of endorsing what is merely a 1920’s opinion of scripture as a text? Example, think about if the old guard had won on the issue of slavery. MLK, Lincoln and others gave us prophetic readings of scripture that were not endorsed in the main.
Admittedly, there is a comfort and certainty to holding to a literalists point of view– and you know I wrestle with doubt– but it seems to me that doubt is the hammer that smashes the window of human fancy and lets in the clearer light. (George MacDonald)
I think we’d do well to be open to other interpretations than our own. Certainly dispensationalism and premillenialism are not without their problems too.
All that aside, I commend you for knowing where you stand, and for rising above the discourse of those outside your camp by remaining charitable in your delivery.
Todd, I like your take on this. Good job and keep standing for the truth.
In Christ,
Jim