It Is Not About The Scream: The Actual Point of Deuteronomy 22:23-27

3 “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. ~Deuteronomy 22:23-27

In my studies of Scripture and my discussions with others concerning the Bible, I have encountered several ways that people attempt to discredit God and His Word. All of these of course usually stem from a misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says or a complete disregard of a passage's context. A popular argument that I hear used most often pertains to a set of laws found in the book of Deuteronomy. I have lost count of the number of times I have had someone quote Deuteronomy 22:23-27 to me and then proceed to explain how God must be unfair to punish a woman for not screaming when raped. How God could judicially punish a victim of a crime. However, if one actually takes the time to study this passage, they should be able to see that the issue is not the screaming or crying out of the woman at all. Rather, it is whether the woman consented to sexual intercourse with the man.

Verses 23-24 and verses 25-27 give instructions concerning judicially what should be done in the case of two different scenarios. Both scenarios deal with a man having sexual intercourse with a woman pledged to be another man's wife. Pay close attention to the differences between the two. In the first instance, a man finds a woman pledged to another in the city and has sexual intercourse with her (lies with her). Then the man and the woman who had sex together are to be taken out and stoned to death. Both are identified as guilty. the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he violated his neighbor's wife (v. 24). Now the other scenario is described differently. In this case the man forces and lies with the woman pledged to be another man's wife and only he is the one to be killed (v. 25). The first scenario doesn't say anything about the man in that case forcing the woman to lie with him. Just that he lies with her and that she does not cry out in the city. Would this not indicate that in the first scenario the woman served as a willing participant in lying with the man? He did not force her to lie with him. The reason she didn't cry out in the city is due to the fact that this act of sexual intercourse was consensual. Hence why she is punished by the death penalty along with the man she slept with. They both are found guilty of the act of adultery since she was pledged to be another man's wife and she willingly sleeps with someone else. The woman crying out in the city would indicate her being forced into the sexual act. She did not consent to it. That is why she is described as being a victim in that case, just as one who has been murdered by their neighbor (v. 26) and thus she bears no guilt for the adulterous action. When the man met her in the field to have sex, she cries out in protest to his action, thus not consenting to it (v. 27).

You see, the issue here is not simply whether the woman cried out in the city or not. That would miss the entire point of these laws. The issue really is whether the woman consented to the sexual act with this man or if he forced her into it against her will. The crying out in the city is the author's way of communicating to us the idea of consent or protest. If she doesn't protest (ie. cry out in the city), she willingly slept with the man and is just as guilty of the act of adultery as he is. However, if she does protest, then she is merely a victim that does not deserve to be punished.

So, this passage certainly does not call God's justice into question. Instead, it reveals it in action. Only the woman who consents to have sex with a man who is not the one she has been pledged to be married to is punished by stoning. Not the victim but the criminal. Once again we find that a closer look shows both the integrity of our God and His Word. Those who call either into question do so from their lack of a careful study of the text or deliberately to suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Happy Birthday John Calvin!

I will bow down toward your holy temple
and I will praise your name
for your love and your faithfulness,
for you have exalted above all things
your name and your word.
~Psalm 138:2

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
~2 Timothy 2:15

Let the pastors boldly dare all things by the word of God. . . . Let them constrain all the power, glory, and excellence of the world to give place to and to obey the divine majesty of this word. Let them enjoin everyone by it, from the highest to the lowest. Let them edify the body of Christ. Let them devastate Satan's reign. Let them pasture the sheep, kill the wolves, instruct and exhort the rebellious. Let them bind and loose thunder and lightning, if necessary, but let them do all according to the word of God
~John Calvin

Today marks the 504th birthday of John Calvin, one of the instruments God used to spread the Reformation throughout Europe. One could easily argue that he is one of the most influential theologians in history next to the apostle Paul and possibly Augustine. Personally, he is one of the "Johns" whom God has used to greatly impact my life and aid in teaching me His Word. (The other two being John MacArthur and John Piper). Regardless of whether you agree with him theologically or not (while through my study of Scripture I wholeheartedly affirm, embrace, and cherish the doctrines of grace he purported, I differ with him on his understanding of infant baptism and amillennialism), there are things we all can learn from his life and ministry which had at its heart the glory of God. A fresh look at Calvin teaches us several things:

1) The Importance of the Word of God
The backbone of Calvin's ministry was the Word of God. This was central to his work in Geneva. In fact, upon seeing the many problems which existed in the church at Geneva, Calvin concluded that the only remedy to the problem would be to preach God's Word and let God straighten the people out through it. Calvin labored at teaching the flock that God had entrusted to him what God had communicated to them through His written Word. He preached ten sermons every two weeks at the same time writing several commentaries which he has blessed the church with today. His belief on the centrality of God's Word led him to preach through the Scriptures verse by verse. Such a commitment is shown in his return to Geneva after his banishment to start preaching from the exact verse he left off at his last sermon three years prior. He is known as the "prince of expositors." Every minister would do well in making the Word of God the foundation of his ministry. Every born again believer would do well in making the Word of God the foundation of their life and work; whatever God has called them to do.

2) The Importance of Embracing, Proclaiming, and Sharing the Glory of God
Calvin had one thing which drove his actions. This was his zeal for the glory of God to be made manifest and shared. The impetus for the strong commitment of teaching God's Word just discussed came from Calvin's perspective that to honor the Word of God would be to honor the God of the Word. He felt that the best way to display God's glory to the people was to preach God's Word which revealed His glorious work of redemption throughout history. He even stated at the end of his life that "I have written nothing out of hatred to any one, but I have always faithfully propounded what I esteemed to be for the glory of God."1 Such a commitment to living for the glory of God should be one which envelopes our lives as well. Paul tells us that Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Nothing should be a higher priority for the Christian than seeking to bring glory to God in everything that he or she does.

3) The Importance of Scholarship
Calvin was a pastor-theologian; something many claim today can't exist. In one moment he could write a treatise explaining what Scripture actually says about "free will" and then in another minister to one who was grieving the loss of a loved one. In fact, Calvin at first could not see how the two went together. He desired to be a scholar and write books concerning the faith. His whole purpose in writing The Institutes of the Christian Religion, his "magnum opus" respectfully, was to teach the pastors who were suffering persecution in France the faith that they were dying for. However, God continued to direct the Reformer to the pastorate where he used his scholarship in his teaching. He was not only a pastor shepherding his flock but a scholar seeking to teach God's Word as thoroughly and clearly as possible. It is interesting that for many decades historical scholars were perplexed with what translation of the Bible Calvin used in his teaching. It was not until recently they realized the reason for their mystery. Calvin did not use a translation but translated the original Hebrew and Greek on the spot from the pulpit without ever mentioning a Hebrew or Greek word! Such scholarship is usually laughed at today with ministers who desire to accurately handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) and pine over what God originally spoke in the original languages with them being accused of wasting their time on frivolous matters. I actually think the church would benefit more from scholarly pastors such as Calvin as well as Jonathon Edwards and John Piper which have followed him.

4)The Importance of Dedication
Calvin's hard work in ministry is enough to make the busiest pastor today in 21st century America appear lazy. Not only did he keep up with his extensive preaching schedule and strive relentlessly to write his commentaries, he also visited people in their homes and managed his administrative responsibilities at his church. He also had a wife and kids to minister to, some kids which I believe he took in. He never would have had time to waste hours in front of a TV or playing video games (not saying that these are wrong but we do need to be careful how we spend our time-Ephesians 5:15-16). These would have slowed him down from the work of ministry. Upon his latter years in poor health, people begged him to take a break. He was even preaching in his bedroom when bedfast. The Reformer's answer was "What? Would you have the Lord find me idle when he comes?"2 Unfortunately, and not admirable, he occupied himself so much with the work of the church that he did not take care of his health. (Something the current commentator as well as others would be wise to take heed about.) Calvin's dedication to what God called him to do reminds me that no matter how overwhelmed I feel with what God has on my plate, I can accomplish what He would have me to do if I rely on His strength through His grace.

5) How God Uses Men Despite Their Many Flaws
Calvin is another reminder of how God uses the most flawed men to do His perfect work. The Bible is full of those who had several weaknesses which would have hindered their effectiveness if it had not been for God's supernatural work both in and through them. Abraham had wavering faith, Jacob was a trickster, Moses couldn't speak, Jeremiah was too young, Gideon was unsure, David committed adultery and murder, Samson was a womanizer, and Peter denied his Lord. Yet, inspite of all of these and possible because of them, God chose to use such weak vessels so that He might get the glory. Calvin is no different. He had his flaws. Just the mention of the name "Michael Servetus" brings the sober reminder of Calvin's role in his execution and no discussion of the church's role with the state is complete without a reference to Calvin's Geneva and how the merging of the two entities was disastrous. This birthday is not a celebration of Calvin. He was a mere man who was nothing. Instead it's a celebration of a great God who sovereignly chose to work through such a weak vessel to bring reform to His church for His glory as He had purposed. Calvin was just an ordinary man who was used by an extraordinary God. Just as we also are. Praise God for John Calvin and the work that He accomplished with his life and ministry. May God use us, as insignificant as we are, to further His Kingdom for His glory as He sees fit.

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

1 John Dillenberger, John Calvin, Selections from His Writings (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1975) 110.
2Preface to John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009) xiv.

The Doctrine of Inerrancy-Part 2

In my last post, I provided a defense of the doctrine of inerrancy from the testimony of Scripture itself. What the Bible says on the matter really should settle any debate over this issue. However, due to the blindness of man towards the truth, many still deny the fact that God has communicated to us a message without any errors or misstatements. (Keep in mind that when we speak of inerrancy we are referring to the original autographs, the words directly written by the authors themselves, not necessarily the copies or translations of them.)In fact, some go so far to actually claim that the idea of the inerrancy of Scripture is a relatively new doctrine that arose out of the Fundamentalist-Liberal controversy of the early 19th century. A man recently made such a claim to me in response to something I had written in my denomination's magazine calling for the denomination to return to its roots of holding to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. But such a view actually must ignore the witness of history to stand. The following is a selective compilation of the church's position throughout the centuries in regard to the inerrancy of Scripture. (I refer to the list as "selective" because many more quotes could be added. These are just some of the strongest ones that I have found.) You will notice that this view cannot be said to be a "new" one in any way, shape, or form but has been taught throughout the ages. The church has been in agreement with the very book that serves at its authority. (Who would have guessed that?) Instead of giving a detailed argumentation of this, I will just let the voices of history speak for themselves. Without any further ado, here they are:

The Church Fathers
"You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them." ~Clement of Rome

"the Scriptures are indeed perfect" ~Irenaeus

"The statements of Holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth" ~Tertullian

"all the prophets spoke harmoniously and in agreement with one another" ~Theophilus

"The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit" ~Irenaeus

"The sacred volumes are fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, and there is no passage either in the Law or the Gospel, or the writings of an Apostle, which does not proceed from the inspired source of Divine Truth." ~Origen

"It is the opinion of some that the Scriptures do not agree or that God who gave them is false. But there is no disagreement at all. Far from it! Neither can the Father, who is truth, lie; 'for it is impossible that God should lie' [Heb. 6:18]" ~Athanasius

"I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture. Of these alone do I most firmly believe that their authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to the truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it . . . Concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error." ~Augustine

"The Faith will totter if the authority of the Holy Scriptures loses its hold on men. We must surrender ourselves to the authority of Holy Scripture, for it can neither mislead nor be misled." ~Augustine

"Lord, surely your scripture is true, for you, being truthful and Truth itself, have produced it." ~Augustine

"When you are really instructed in the Divine Scriptures, and have realized that its laws and testimonies are the bonds of truth, then you can contend with adversaries; then you will fetter them and lead them bound into captivity; then of the foes you have made captive you will make freemen of God." ~Jerome

The Middle Ages
"For I am sure that if I say anything which is undoubtedly contradictory to holy Scripture, it is wrong; and if I become aware of such a contradiction, I do not wish to hold to that opinion." ~Anselm

"It is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Scripture." ~Thomas Aquinas

Peter Abelard who did question inerrancy, was a rare exception during this period.

The Reformers
"It is established by God's Word that God does not lie, nor does His Word lie." ~Martin Luther

"Natural reason produces heresy and error. Faith teaches and adheres to the pure truth. He who adheres to the Scriptures will find that they do not lie or deceive." ~Martin Luther

"The Scriptures have never erred." ~Martin Luther

The following are descriptions that John Calvin used for Scripture: "The sure and infallible record," "The inerring standard," "The pure Word of God," "The infallible rule of His Holy Truth," "Free from every stain or defect," "The inerring certainty," The certain and unerring rule," "Unerring light," "Infallible Word of God," "Has nothing belonging to man mixed with it," "Inviolable," and "Infallible oracles."

The Post-Reformers
"The canonical Holy Scriptures in the original text are the infallible truth and are free from every error; in other words, in the canonical sacred Scriptures there is found no lie, no falsity, no error, not even the least, whether in subject matter or expressions, but in all things and all the details that are handed down in them, they are most certainly true, whether they pertain to doctrines or morals, to history or chronology, to topography or nomenclature. No ignorance, no thoughtlessness, no forgetfulness, no lapse of memory can dare be ascribed to the amanuenses of the Holy Ghost in their penning of the Sacred Writings." ~John Andrew Quenstedt

"The sacred writers were so acted upon and inspired by the Holy Spirit (as to the things themselves and as to the words) as to be kept free from all error and . . . their writings are truly authentic and divine . . . The prophets did not fall into mistakes in those things which they wrote as inspired men (theopneustos [Greek for God breathed]) and as prophets, not even in the smallest particulars; otherwise faith in the whole of Scripture would be rendered doubtful." ~Francis Turretin

"Whereas, therefore, no one may say that any infirmity could befall the Holy Spirit, it follows that the sacred writers could not be deceived, or err, in any respect. Here, then, it becomes us to be so scrupulous as not to allow that any such slip can be found in scripture ... it is the special prerogative of scripture, that it never errs" ~William Whitaker

"The purity of Scripture lies in the fact that it stands complete in itself, without either deceit or error." ~William Perkins

"The Scriptures are evidence of their own divine authority as a human being is evident by the motions, behaviour and speech of a body of a human form and contexture, or that the body is animated by a rational mind. For we know no otherwise than by the consistency, harmony and concurrence of the train of actions and sounds, and their agreement to all that we can suppose to be a rational mind . . . So there is that wonderous universal harmony and consent and concurrence in the aim and drift, such as universal appearance of a wonderful, florious design, such stamps everywhere of exalted and divine wisdom, majesty, and holiness in matter, manner, contexture and aim, that the evidence is the same that the Scriptures are the word and work of a divine mind; to one that is thoroughly acquainted with them, as 'tis that the words and actions of an understanding man are from a rational mind, to one that is of a long time been his familiar acquaintance." ~Jonathan Edwards

Modern Period
It is here that things started to change and the doctrine of inerrancy began to be questioned and denied. Some historians have pointed out this to occur in the early seventeenth century. Up until this point, the church had almost universally been in agreement over the view that the Bible contained no errors in its original writings. Even the Roman Catholic and Protestant divide during the Reformation held common ground pertaining to this. Their disagreements stemmed more so over the authority of the Scriptures, the canonicity of the Apocrypha, and the sufficiency of Scripture. Since we can trace the departure from inerrancy during the 1600s into the modern era, it actually would be more accurate to say that the novel view is not that the Bible is inerrant but that it isn't. And the reason that so much more literature had been produced during the Fundamentalist-Liberal controversy would not have been because it was a new doctrine developing but since inerrancy had not been questioned as strongly as it had been then, thus providing the reason for issuing such a strong apologetic (a defense) for it.

Conclusion
Churches and groups today which deny the biblical doctrine of inerrancy should take note. In so doing they ignore the clear teachings of Scripture and find themselves outside the norm of a position that the church has consistently held since its start on the day of Pentecost. In fact, those who deny the doctrine of inerrancy actually agree with the devil over and against God. He serves as the first one to question the inerrancy of God's Word. His very first words recorded to us are: Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden? (Genesis 3:1). He questioned God's Word. Did God really say that? The question for you is whether or not you will say pertaining to Scripture "Thus said the Lord" or "Did God really say that?" There really is no other alternative. The Bible claims to be ALL God's Word. You either believe that claim as the church has or you question it as the devil does.

In Christ,
Lee
Sola Scriptura
Soli Deo Gloria

Sources
-Allison, Gregg R. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.
-Covenant Protestant Reformed Church. "The Inerrancy of Scripture." URL: http://www.cprf.co.uk/quotes/inerrancyofscripture.htm
-Gerstner, John H. "The View of the Bible Held By the Church: Calvin and the Westminster Divines." Inerrancy. Ed. Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980.
-Lindsell, Harold. The Battle For the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.
-Preus, Robert D. "The View of the Bible Held By the Church: The Early Church Through Luther." Inerrancy. Ed. Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980.

The Doctrine of Inerrancy-Part 1

One of my greatest concerns today is the departure of many churches (of course I am speaking of visible churches because such could never be a problem of those who are a part of the true invisible church who submits to her head, the Lord Jesus Christ) and so-called Christian organizations from holding to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. In 1976, Harold Lindsell wrote a book entitled "The Battle For The Bible" where he documented the sad denial of inerrancy by several groups at the time. Over 30 years later such a "battle for the Bible" still is needed. Many denominations are in decline today and have plunged towards liberalism; all because they have quit viewing the Bible to be inerrant and have played fast and loose with its teachings. Such churches who deny the inerrancy of the text of Scripture properly can no longer be called a true church and have no firm foundation to stand upon. Personally, in tears I witness this occurring in the denomination that I serve. My goal in the next two blog posts is to argue for the validity of the doctrine of inerrancy and the dangers of denying it. First, we will look at the evidence for the Bible's inerrancy and then, in a separate post, I will post voices throughout church history who agree with the Bible's teaching concerning its own trustworthiness.

Defining the Doctrine
The first issue we need to discuss concerning the doctrine of inerrancy is just what is meant by the term. Granted it is not a word we normally throw around at the dinner table. (However, if you do, please let me know because I would love to join you then! If the terms propitiation or superlapsarianism often come up, then I am there!) Inerrant basically means without error. It comes from the Latin word errare, to wander. Therefore, to describe something as inerrant is to state that it does not stray from the truth. In relation to the Bible, it communicates the idea that the original autographs of Scripture contain no falsehood pertaining to anything that they claim. “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” defines inerrancy as the “quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions." Everything the Bible says is true and can be trusted. Whether historical, sociological, scientific, biological, or psychological, the Bible can be found to be accurate. It makes no mistakes in anything it asserts. The Bible may not communicate every fact in existence but in what it does share, it can be described as accurate in those facts. So to say that the Bible is inerrant means that it does not contain any errors of any kind in whatever it may say. Please note that this only refers to the first writings of the Scripture that came from the dripping of the pens of the original authors and copies and translations today only as they accurate represent them.

Deduction From the Doctrine of Inspiration
We know that the Bible is without error because its author is One who cannot err. The fact that the Bible is the inspired Word of God leads to the conclusion that is it inerrant. At least 3,808 times the Old Testament authors refer to a statement as being Thus said the LORD or something equivalent to it. The prophets are described as having the word of the LORD coming down upon them before they spoke His words (Jeremiah 1:1-2; Ezekiel 1:2-3; Joel 1:1; Hosea 1:1). The clear implication is that the prophets spoke what God had told them to speak and thus were delivering His message.

The New Testament authors also viewed the Old Testament writings as being God's very word. Peter tells us that But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20-21). Though written down by the instrument of man, the ultimate author of Scripture is God whose Holy Spirit moved men to write down His very words. Paul refers to all Scripture as inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Literally, the Greek reads that all Scripture is God-breathed. The all Scripture that Paul refers to is the Old Testament as that would have been Scripture for both the apostle and Timothy. The author of Hebrews even states that the author of Psalm 95 is ultimately the Holy Spirit and not David. Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, . . . (Hebrews 3:7). A similar case may be found in Peter's discussion of the necessity to choose Judas' successor based on Scripture in Acts 1:16. He states that the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David (Acts 1:16) indicating the Holy Spirit as the author and David as the means. The New Testament writers are unwavering in their testimony to God's inspiration of the Old Testament writings.

Although the New Testament as we have it today had yet to be completed at the time, there is evidence that the New Testament authors considered their own writings as Scripture, God's very word, as well. For instance, Paul quotes a statement of Jesus recorded by the author Luke and calls it Scripture in I Timothy 5:18. The quote is alongside one from Deuteronomy. Luke's writing is deemed authoritative by Paul in teaching that elders should be paid for their service. Also, Peter explicitly labels Paul's letters as Scripture. He states that the untaught and unstable distort his writings as they do the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). So, according to Peter, Paul's letters are a part of Scripture. Furthermore, these letters were intended to be read aloud to the congregations and admonish them (Colossians 4:16).

So the Bible itself claims to be more than just any words but God's very words. If the Bible is God's Word as it claims, then it must be inerrant. Otherwise it cannot be described as God's Word. As R. C. Sproul explains, “If [the Bible] is the Word of God, it does not err. If it errs, it is not the Word of God. Surely we can have a word about God that errs, but we cannot have a word from God that errs.” To deny the inerrancy of Scripture is to deny the inspiration of the Scripture. The two doctrines rise and fall together.

Declaration of Scripture Concerning It's Own Inerrancy
Though we don't have to just deduce the doctrine of inerrancy from the claims of Scripture that they are God's actual words. The Bible explicitly refers to itself as inerrant throughout its pages. In Psalm 19:7 we read, The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The Hebrew word for perfect literally means complete or sound. Something that is in accordance with the truth. Likewise, several verses in Psalm 119 point out the inerrancy of Scripture (vv.42,96,140,142,151,160,172). Jesus Himself acknowledged the fact that Scripture contains no errors and thus can be completely trusted. He says in Matthew 5:18: For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. He mentions in John 10:35 that the Scripture cannot be broken and states in John 17:17, Sanctify then in the truth; Your word is truth. James refers to Scripture as the perfect law (James 1:25). All of this attests to Scripture being without error.

Drawing a Circle?
Now I know that someone reading this right now is crying "foul" and will accuse me of using circular logic in coming to my conclusion that Scripture is inerrant. That I say that Scripture is inerrant because it says it is inerrant and it says that it is inerrant because it is inerrant. However, this is not simply the case with my argument. Logically, the Bible, like anything written or spoken, makes assertions. Those assertions can either be valid or invalid (to use some of the technical logical terms for "right" or "wrong"). The Bible claims that it is the Word of God that does not err. That is either a correct assertion or an incorrect one. As one who has dedicated my life to studying the Bible, I can testify that I have found the Bible's claim to be true. Examining several so-called "apparent contradictions" within Scripture, I have discovered them to be just that, "apparent." I find that most people are too quick to jump to conclusions before actually studying in depth what the text is saying to realize that the passages in discussion do not conflict at all. Also, the greatest validation of Scripture's claim to be God's Word that does not err is the witness of the Holy Spirit within me. He has wrought a conviction in my heart that the Bible is just what it claims. John Calvin puts it well when he points out: "For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit." I pray that God would open up any eyes who are currently closed to these facts and not only would He give them a conviction that the Bible is indeed His Word that does not err in anything that it asserts but also give a desire to read, study, mediate, and live out this Word. And if you have been given eyes to see that the Bible is true, you must deal with the ramifications of what God's Word says about God's holiness and your sin. You cannot deny its truth. May we not only honor the Word of God but in so doing also honor the God of the Word.

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

The New Tolerance and Christianity

I have been noticing an interesting trend in our country the past several years. First, the definition of the word tolerance has changed. It has went from meaning one believing that everyone has the right to hold to their view regardless of whether they agree with it or not to one affirming that all views must be valid. In fact, now, even if one recognizes one's right to hold to a certain view, if they declare that view wrong or invalid they become labeled as intolerant. As Bob Dylan once sang, "the times they are a-changin.'" Second, what is even more interesting about this new tolerance espoused today, is that it appears that two of its primary targets are Christians and Christianity. Allow me to point out some examples that demonstrate this.

The CEO of popular restaurant chain, Chic-Fil-A, makes a statement that expresses his position on marriage that has been the church's understanding of the sacred union based on the Bible for the past 2,000 years. The next thing you know, people are talking about how intolerant he is and are calling for a boycott. Some companies decide against supporting the restaurant chain because of the view of it's CEO. Most laughable of all has to be the mayor of Boston publicly refusing to allow a Chic-Fil-A restaurant to be in his city due to the CEO's statement violating it's stance as an "open city," a "city at the forefront of inclusion." What he must have meant to say was that Boston serves as an "open city" and "at the forefront of inclusion" for those who agree with what the mayor considers appropriate and that they are actually "closed" and "exclude" those they do not agree with. Ironically, in the name of tolerance they cannot tolerate the CEO's position!

In the last inaugural ceremony for President Obama, evangelical pastor Louie Giglo was originally invited to give the benediction for the service. However, after some sleuth work uncovered that he had preached a sermon about 15 years ago or so stating that homosexuality is a sin, he was quickly pressured to back out of the invitation with the White House issuing an apology due to them not knowing his views on human sexuality. (Though what would you expect from an evangelical pastor who holds to the Bible as God's inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word?) Controversy also surrounded Pastor Rick Warren when he was asked to give the benediction for President Obama's inaugural ceremony for his first term. People cited his views on homosexuality (which are the same as Giglo) and his biblical position on the exclusivity of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. They just could not tolerate these views. Yet both Giglo and Warren were the ones being described as intolerant for their views! Interestingly enough, little was said about Obama also choosing Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal denomination. He believes that his view is right and that Warren and Giglo's are wrong. Yet the same ones who were concerned about Warren's views upsetting others didn't seem to mind Robinson's.

And to note a more local case, we can look to the stir that has been caused in Connellsville, PA when a Jr. High School was sued to remove a 10 Commandments monument that had been on the school grounds for about 55 years. Why the lawsuit in the first place? Someone complained about it. I guess it must have offended them. However, removing it appears to have offended several others within the small community as 10 Commandments signs now can be found all over Connellsville and the surrounding Mt. Pleasant area where I live. Plus, several complaints have arose over taking it down or moving it. If this really is about being cautious concerning offending anyone, then what about the many offended over taking it down? What about their rights? This new tolerance certainly appears to be very "one-sided."

To make any statement about homosexuality being a sin and so-called "same-sex marriage" to be against God's created plan for the family leads to being called names such as "bigot" and the accusation that one is discriminating against homosexuals. However, these people either fail to understand what "discrimination" is or they have redefined it since by such name calling and accusations they actually discriminate against the Christians who hold to such views. Talk about a double standard!

Now none of this should surprise Christians. After all, Jesus did warn us about this. He said, If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you (John 15:19). Those who bear Christ's name will also be ridiculed as He was on this earth. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also (John 15:20). I often wonder if this new tolerance might be the start of the persecution of Christ's true followers in America. Regardless, we need to continue to preach the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ unashamedly while it may be labeled intolerant and our freedoms to do so may become more and more limited. Many are heading to Hell and need to hear the good news!

In Christ,
Lee Smith
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Did the Early Brethen Hold to the Doctrine of Inerrancy of Scripture? A Response to A Response to My Letter to the Church of the Brethren Messenger Magazine

In the January/February edition of my denomination's (Church of the Brethren) magazine called Messenger, I wrote a letter addressing an article that had been written that discussed "What Holds the Brethren Together" and argued that it would be better for us to examine what currently divides the Brethren; the differing views pertaining to the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Bible. My letter closed with a call for the denomination as a whole to "get back to holding to the Bible as the inspired and inerrant Word of God." I learned today as I looked at this month's magazine that someone kindly responded to my letter and claimed that I had been mistaken that "inerrancy" served as a "traditional Brethren view of the Bible from which some of us have strayed."

The man based his claim that the Brethren did not hold to this doctrine on his experience of 60 years growing up in the Church of the Brethren (CoB) and never being taught that the Bible served as inerrant; being without any error. I base my claim that inerrancy does serve as a foundational doctrine of the Brethren that has been forgotten today on the writings of the first leader of the denomination, Alexander Mack, as well as other statements of the early Brethren and their connections to the Reformed, Lutheran, Anabaptists, and Pietists groups at the time. My research and arguments pertaining to this can be found in a paper I wrote entitled The Early Brethren and Scripture. I will allow others to evaluate and check my claims to decide for themselves whether evidence exists concerning the early Brethren's treatment of the Bible as inerrant.

Also, the man goes on to claim that "while there were some early Christian writers who made reference to the idea in various ways, it was, as a religious doctrine, an idea that was born of the fundamentalist movement which began in the late 19th century." I am not sure that this is quite true from what I have researched concerning the history of the doctrine. The number of early Christian writers who made statements concerning the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the texts of Scripture would number more than just "some." In the writings of Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Athanasious, Augustine, and the Reformers such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, we find statements indicating they viewed the Bible as a book that contained no errors or contradictions. And these are not some abstract names in church history mind you. Several of them have been viewed as powerhouse contenders of the faith once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3). Remember as well that the Brethren movement split from the Reformed and Lutheran churches, not due to the inerrancy of Scripture but over the practice of baptism, the view of the state church, and the wayward living noticed from many of the Reformed and Lutheran practitioners. We have no writings of them ever challenging these churches pertaining to their view that the Bible served as God's Word that did not err in any way. The reason for the emphasis of the doctrine of inerrancy in the Fundamentalist movement of the 19th century was not due to the invention of such a doctrine but a defense against the movement of liberalism in which the Fundamentalist movement rose in opposition towards. It was the liberal movement and the rise of "higher critical scholarship" that began to question the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible. In fact, it would probably be more accurate to say that the questioning of the inerrancy of the Bible by those within the church is a novel idea and not the doctrine itself. The reason not much had been written about it prior to that time period could very well have been due to the fact that no need existed. It was not an issue that had to be addressed like the challenges leveled against the deity of Christ and the nature of salvation.

If this is the case, then the conclusion my friend, whom I have not had the privilege of meeting yet, arrives at stands as not valid. He says that based on the idea that the doctrine of inerrancy was "born of the fundamentalist movement" "then it can hardly be considered a traditional belief, since the Church of the Brethren predates it by more than two centuries. (Of course, Christianity itself predates the idea by far more centuries.)" Actually, the doctrine of inerrancy in a real sense predates Christianity! The Bible itself indicates the truthfulness and trustworthiness of its claims in numerous places (Psalm 19:7; 119:42,96,140,142,151,160,172; Proverbs 30:5; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; 17:17; James 1:22-25). From what I have gleaned from my studies, inerrancy has been the consistent view of the church throughout the centuries (until the past few centuries) with no indication of the early Brethren, who founded what is now known as the Church of the Brethren, being a notable exception.

Why does this matter what the early Brethren believed anyway? Because it goes to show how "unBrethren" the denomination has become today and how we have gotten to the disunity and failure to being of "one mind" on so many issues. As I said before, if we want unity in this denomination, we must get back to holding to the Bible as the inspired and inerrant Word of God as our Brethren forefathers. Otherwise, the Church of the Brethren will continue to crumble as it further abandons the firm foundation of the Word of God.

Respectfully In Christ,
P. V. Lee Smith

The Bible on Homosexuality: Revised and Expanded Edition

About three years ago when I had just graduated seminary and had more free time on my hands than I knew what to do with, I did an intense study concerning the Bible's teaching about homosexuality. At the time, the denomination in which I served was debating the issue and I thought that I would write a paper to educate those who might have been confused about what God said about the issue. Turns out that God has a lot to say about homosexuality and so called "same-sex marriage." With the current two cases being heard by the US Supreme Court and many discussions pertaining to the issue ensuing I thought that I would take some time to "update" and "revise" that paper. My hope is to help people understand what Scripture says concerning this topic so that they have the proper perspective. The link to the paper can be found here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1LkenNmEG_dY2tFOEQ4dnh0d0E/edit?usp=sharing

God bless!

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!