me Diary of an 80's Trucker me

see first post in archives for explanation of the title (or just click this)

| Kai | Sunset | Blue Skies | Shades | Pirates | Pirate Getaway |

Saturday, April 15, 2006

"Suppose You Are a Liberal Critic of the Bible" - Piper

My fellow soldier in war with the liberals sent me the link to this article by John Piper:

------------
Suppose You Are a Liberal Critic of the Bible

April 14, 1998

Suppose that you are a liberal critic of the Bible. By liberal, I mean unfettered by commitment to the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. And suppose that you find in an early letter of the apostle Paul these words: "Concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge." And then suppose that you find in a letter written near the end of his life the words, "You are able to admonish one another." And suppose that, as a liberal, you are not inclined to find old-fashioned unity in Paul's various teachings, but rather are somewhat excited when you can construct new theories about how the diversity of Paul's teachings emerged.

So you infer that there was an "early Paul" who was enthusiastic and optimistic and perfectionistic. And you prove it with the early words, "You yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge." You argue that "full of goodness" and "filled with knowledge" clearly imply that Paul believed these people "had arrived." They had reached a state of perfection. They didn't need any teaching or any correction. They were "full of goodness." This is the "early Paul." But you also infer that Paul's thinking developed over time. He changed his mind and the "later Paul" emerged. Reality had settled in over the years, and Paul's optimism had been dashed by people's imperfections; and so he had adjusted his theology to something more realistic.

Perfectionism had given way to process. And you prove it with the later words, "You are able to admonish one another." You reason, "Clearly, if they had to admonish one another, they were not yet perfect." In fact, with scholarly flourish, you observe that the verbs "are able" and "to admonish" are both in the present continuous tense, implying ongoing action. And you argue that the imperfections must be fairly constant, because they require continuous admonition and correction.

From all this, you proclaim, with liberal "courage," over against conservative commitments to the inspiration and coherence of all apostolic writings, that Paul cannot be inspired by an all-knowing God, and his writings are limited and sometimes mistaken by his ordinary human perspective. He has to correct himself when experience proves his earlier efforts erroneous.

Now here is one of the problems with such an imaginary scenario. Romans 15:14 combines both of those words (the so-called early and the so-called later) in one verse: "And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another." In other words, there is nothing, in Paul's mind, inconsistent in saying both of these things about the same people at the same time. Being "full of goodness" and "filled with all knowledge" is not meant to imply perfection. It does not mean that the people are beyond the need for admonition and correction. The "fullness" is not a fullness of sinless perfection, but fullness of sufficiency for ministry, that is, the church in Rome had all the goodness and knowledge it needed to minister effectively to each other through admonition and correction.

Here's the point. When you find two parts of Scripture that may seem to be in tension with each other, don't make the liberal mistake of jumping to the conclusion that the Bible is inconsistent or self-correcting or in process of moving from enthusiastic error to realistic truth. Instead, picture the things that seem in tension as spoken by a person who means both of them, and regards both of them as true. Then work toward a coherent understanding of them as best you can. This will take you much deeper into the reality of God's truth. And you will honor the divine Author of Scripture.

Loving God's inerrant word with you,

Pastor John
------------

4 Comments:

  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Larry Clayton said…

    You put liberals in a very poor light, pastor John, but there are all kinds of liberals. Some of them might agree 100% with your arguments here; I do, for example. You're not impeaching liberals here; you're just impeaching cloudy thinking.

    If you think you're 100% right and 'lberals' are 100% wrong, well ole buddy, that's cloudy thinking.

     
  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger Mister Jason said…

    Is Piper addressing a true argument from liberal Christians?

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger Rick Harper said…

    I don't think he would say that liberals are 100% wrong on all thought. The pope is a Trinitarian; however, he's wrong on other issues. Mormons say love your neighbor; but their teachings are heretical. Some atheists call for peace; I agree with peace and loving your neighbor, so they aren't 100% wrong afterall. In that respect, Piper would say that liberals are not 100% wrong either; they confess faith in Christ and so on.

    If you are questioning if Piper would say that liberals are 100% wrong on views concerning Scripture, I can't answer for him.

    One may agree with interdependency between the Synoptics (for example), but MOST liberal critics' reasons(that I've encountered) for differences between those Gospels are completely, 100% wrong. I do not know your views on Scripture, nor do I know 1 million other liberal critics' views on Scripture (as you said, there are many kinds of liberals), so to say that all liberals are 100% wrong would be like saying, to use a Sproul-like argument, there is no gold in Alaska. Have I examined every bit of ground in Alaska to come to that conclusion? No. In order to make such a comment, that is what I would have to do.

    The agrument in the article is a criticism of the LIBERAL APPROACH to Scripture. I think by claiming to be "a liberal", you have lumped yourself in with this type of approach to Scripture. This approach stems from the the fact that there is a great difference between the respect held for Scripture by a "liberal", and that held by a "conservative".

    I am not sure if it is an actual example.

     
  • At 2:13 AM, Anonymous Liberal BiasĀ  said…

    Appealing information you have provided. It gained me more knowledge and idea. Please keep up the good because i like the way you are writing. Thanks!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home