The Inquirer, the Skeptic, the Critic and the Bible

An old maxim of Samuel Butler (1612-1680) claims: "He that complies against his will, is of his own opinion still" (link). There are honest inquiries into the reliability and inerrancy of Scripture which no honest student of the Bible would either disdain or shy away from answering. Only someone who is unsure of the reliability of Scripture is threatened when challenged by honest questions asked by honest persons. 

But there are dishonest questions asked by convinced skeptics and willful unbelievers. All the convincing arguments of all the ages would not convince such persons on the subject of the truthfulness of the Bible. John W. Haley quotes Bishop Home as stating: 

Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer; and when this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written on the subject.¹ 

A time existed in both England and America when the Bible was revered, feared and obeyed, even by unbelievers. That time has passed. Whatever suspicion can be conjured and imagined is leveled against the Bible in our culture. "Question authority!" and "Question everything!" are mantras for our age. Questioning is one category; refusal to reason is quite another.

Not to worry: such is merely the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. When Jude wanted to construct a letter to early first-century believers regarding our common salvation, he was hindered, sensing the urgency to warn them to "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude. 1:3 NRSV). Why? "For certain people have crept in unnoticed . . . ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4 ESV).

Such persons also "defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander the glorious ones" (Jude 1:8 ESV). Rejection of authority is a pertinent disposition in our day. Secularists cannot tolerate the concept of a God to whom they are accountable, and they refuse to endure any notion that the Bible is God's inspired, inerrant word to humanity; because if this is true, then the Bible condemns them as sinners in need of a Savior, and they will be judged not only for their unbelief and rejection of that Savior but also held accountable for their actions.

The apostle Peter wrote concerning the last days before Christ would return, and we are watching those circumstances unfold in our own day just as he wrote: "First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, 'Where is the promise of his [Christ's second] coming?'" (2 Peter 3:3-4 NRSV) Let the scoffers continue their scoffing.

But at the same time, may we not be discouraged by their scoffing. Those who ask questions about the truth of Scripture, may we always be ready with viable answers. Understanding, however, that many have already made up their minds as to the fiction or "inherent fallibility" of the Bible.

John Haley describes a particular exegetical principle adopted by some critics of the Bible, to the effect that many similar narrative events mentioned in Scripture are necessarily identical -- that such are "irreconcilable accounts of one and the same event" -- thus demonstrating the errant nature of the authors of Scripture and, thus, its generally flawed production. He exposes the double standards of such critics, and responds, quoted here at length:

Take, as a well-known example, the case of the two Presidents Edwards, father and son. Both were named Jonathan Edwards, and were the grandsons of clergymen.

Both were pious in their youth, were distinguished scholars, and were tutors for equal periods in the colleges where they were respectively educated. Both were settled in the ministry as successors to their maternal grandfathers, were dismissed on account of their religious opinions, and were again settled in retired country towns, over congregations singularly attached to them, where they had leisure to pursue their favorite studies, and to prepare and publish their valuable works.

Both were removed from these stations to become presidents of colleges, and both died shortly after their respective inaugurations; the one in the fifty-sixth, and the other in the fifty-seventh year of his age; each having preached, on the first Sabbath of the year of his death, on the text: "This year thou shalt die."

Now, let these circumstances be submitted for the consideration of rationalistic critics, and the probable decision will be that there was but one Jonathan Edwards.

We thus see that, if critics dared to tamper with the facts of secular, as they do with those of sacred history, they would justly incur the ridicule of all well-informed persons. Men clamor for the treatment of the Bible like any other book, yet treat it as they dare not treat another book. Herein lies the inconsistency of much of the current criticism; particularly of that "higher criticism" of which we hear so much.² 

In my opinion, the real reason why skeptics and unbelievers doubt the truth of the Bible is not because they genuinely think that it contains errors but because they are antagonistic to its Author -- the Judge of all the earth (Gen. 18:25) who will hold each person accountable for his or her life.

Instead of a gracious Sovereign who loves them, who demonstrated that love by sending His only Son into the world to die for their sins and offenses against Him, they see only a bigoted Tyrant, a Killjoy, and an unjust King. These are the rebels to whom He still graces every moment of every day, sustaining their very existence (cf. Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3).

As mentioned in the previous post, some people want the Bible to be amended to agree with their secular worldviews (link). There are many who amend Scripture by granting passages an interpretation exactly opposite of its true message. The apostle Peter mentioned the writings of the apostle Paul, admitting the difficulty of some of his statements, which "the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16 ESV). The ignorant and unstable are still twisting.

But the scriptures cannot be amended, either in actuality or in interpretation, because they are God's word. Arminius calls the scriptures perfect, without error, divine (link). His followers the Remonstrants agree:

That all these books, and without any exceptions for the majority, were written or approved by inspired men, has been recognized in the certain and evident testimonies and documents, and was so clearly proven, that nothing more [by way of proof] can be justly or reasonably desired. . . .

Therefore, the doctrine contained in these canonical books is of itself altogether authentic and indeed of divine authority, and unquestionable, and by reason of the infallible veracity of God, entirely deserves undoubted faith, and by virtue of its . . . absolute and supreme power, most humble obedience from us.³

What more proof of the inspiration of Scripture could we desire? We have God's word -- the "prophetic message more fully confirmed" (2 Pet. 1:19 NRSV). Until the day when we hear His voice, face to face, we shall be satisfied with these words "breathed out by God" (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV).                

__________ 

¹ John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (New Kensington: Whitaker House, 1992), 35. 

² Ibid., 35-36.

³ "On the Sacred Scriptures," in The Arminian Confession of 1621, translated and edited by Mark A. Ellis (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2005), 36, 39.