Neil over at 4Simpsons has posted the first of a four part series on the problems with pro-gay theology. His first part is very reasonable and sets out with a fair tone that I’m sure will continue through the rest of the posts.
He hits the nail on the head in bringing up that this issue is mostly over Biblical authority and not one particular sin over another.
If you’d like to read, click over to his site. I’ll update these links to part two, three, and four as they are posted on his site.
UPDATE: A part 5 summary was posted in conclusion and response to comments.
Filed under: Apologetics, Homosexuality, Politics
He does post some rather excellent articles. He is a real blessing.
Amen TT!
[...] HT: GalatiansC4V16 [...]
He is right, the whole debate revolves around one’s view of the authority of scripture. When scripture is viewed as less than inerrant, a narrative of our story or one among many sources of truth, then various opinions arise to justify this sinful behavior.
Of course, what Craig fails to mention is that nearly no mainstream orthodox denomination views Scripture as inerrant. Inerrancy has never been a doctrine in the Reformed, Calvinist tradition, though infallibility is. Is inerrancy a Methodist Doctrine, Craig? I was unaware of that.
Alan, inerrancy was an original Methodist view of scripture during Wesley’s time. I think if you look at the more conservative Reformed Evangelicals like the PCA, RC Sproul, John Piper and your old friend Mark Driscoll you will see them adhere to inerrancy. Some people use infallibility and inerrancy interchangably, I don’t. I see inerrancy as scripture being true and without error in all that it affirms. And I am sorry Alan, scripture clearly affirms that homosexuality is sin. Dance around that as much as you like, I don’t buy your view that scripture approves the acceptance of homosexual practice.
Craig, the fact that some smaller, newer denominations have made inerrancy a “fundamental” doesn’t in fact, mean that it has traditionally been so for orthodox reformed denominations. I am frankly also a bit suspicious of your assertion that Wesley held to such a doctrine. But not being an expert on Wesley, I’m not sure about it.
However, the PCUSA doesn’t and never has held to doctrines of inerrancy, heck even the very conservative RCA and the CRC don’t hold to inerrancy as a doctrine and never have (note that these are all denominations that have been around far longer than those which split off during the fundamentalist/modernist controversies.) Certainly Calvin never did either. Yes some do use inerrancy and infallibility interchangeably…I don’t and I’m not confusing the two. You’ve provided no evidence that the vast, vast majority of traditional, orthodox reformed folks believe in a doctrine of inerrancy. In other words I’ll see your Driscoll and raise you a Calvin.
“Dance around that as much as you like, I don’t buy your view that scripture approves the acceptance of homosexual practice.”
I’ll excuse your mixed metaphor, but I wasn’t selling anything, nor was I dancing. I was discussing inerrancy. And here you are clearly wrong. Now if you want to create and or adhere to a doctrine that most of the world not only disagrees with, but has clearly refuted, feel free. You can dance around that as much as you like, but I don’t buy your view that Scripture is inerrant. Infallible? Sure … that’s what we Calvinists have believed for many centuries.
In addition, your view that one must hold the Bible to be less than inerrant in order to justify homosexuality is also clearly wrong. Bazillions of orthodox Christians do not hold to the fundamentalists notion of inerrancy and yet would agree with you about homosexuality.
Basically your comment is simply a way to shut down discussion, “You don’t believe the Bible…etc., etc., etc.” What truly scares you is that yes, in fact I do, and I take it far more seriously than someone who creates a caricature out of it, or worse, an idol to be worshipped.
Alan
Regardless of what Presbyterians or whoever else you want to stack your deck with think, I believe that holding to a Bible free of errors is critical. If you in fact take the Bible as literally and seriously as you say you do, how do you overlook or reinterpret the obvious references to the sin of homosexual practice?
“Regardless of what Presbyterians or whoever else you want to stack your deck with think, I believe that holding to a Bible free of errors is critical.”
And I have no problem if that’s your belief. Feel free! If you think you can justify the obvious and numerous inconsistencies in the numbers of people reported in censuses, generations in genealogies, and even significant theological differences, have at it! (ie 2 Samuel 24:1-17 v. 1 Chron. 21:1-17 as just one example.)
Just don’t think we’re going to buy your attempt at revisionist history to try to make it sound as if inerrancy is a traditional or orthodox belief. It ain’t. That stack of people in my “deck” demonstrate that clearly.
“If you in fact take the Bible as literally…”
You seem to be confusing inerrancy, infallibility, and a literal reading of Scripture. As I said above, and I’ll repeat again, the traditional understanding of Reformed Christians is that the Bible is the inspired, authoritative Word of God, infallible not inerrant. That’s the understanding contained in our historical confessions, and the understanding I agree with. I never said I read the Bible “literally”, and I highly doubt anyone actually reads the whole Bible completely literally — (trees clap their hands?)
In any event, whether one believes in the infallibility or inerrancy of Scripture (or both) none of that requires me to read the Bible “literally” which is an issue of *interpretation*, not about the creation of Scripture itself.
YYYY-AAAA-WWWW-NNNN!
This horse was dead long ago Craig. You and I both have been twisted in this pretzel by Alan before.
Alan’s views of inerrancy, infallibility, literal readings, and church history reminds me of the movie Back To The Future 2, where Marty was off in Biff’s alternate reality.
Alan, taking the Bible “literally” doesn’t mean improper hermeneutics. It means proper hermeneutics. Trees clapping hands are metaphorical and the context indicates that. The immorality of homosexuality is not, and the contexts indicate that as well.
Craig, perhaps we should say, “take the Bible accurately” which takes into account the contexts, types of writings, as well as other hermeneutic principles, and not just “literally” so people like Alan can create straw men of us believing trees are slamming their leaves together.
tr
“Trees clapping hands are metaphorical and the context indicates that.”
Um…duh. LOL Seriously Tony, that’s what I just said! It isn’t that difficult to understand – a LITERAL reading of those passages in the Psalms would indeed be incorrect as they were meant to be metaphorical. I’m glad you recognize that. So do I! I’m not twisting anything, I’m simply correcting Craig when he said I read the Bible literally. I don’t. And neither do you. In fact I even said “I highly doubt anyone actually reads the whole Bible completely literally.” Try to keep up buddy.
Really Tony, if you’d bother actually reading what I write instead of being so thin skinned and looking for ways to twist my words so that you can find some disagreement somewhere, you’d be better off. I’m not creating a straw man of you believing trees are slamming their leaves together. I never said that and in fact I will repeat, “I highly doubt anyone actually reads the whole Bible completely literally.”
Did you read that last sentence? Re-read it a few more times. You’re included in “anyone” there. LOL
The issue I was discussing with Craig was not interpretation (ie. reading the Bible literally vs. reading it in context.) I was simply correcting Craig on his assertions about inerrancy vs. infallibility and his statement that I read the Bible “literally”.
Instead of silly comments, perhaps you can provide evidence that historically the Reformed churches have ever ascribed to doctrines of inerrancy? Yeah, I didn’t think so…which is why all you’ve got is silly comments. Your attempt at revisionist history is without merit and/or evidence.
BTW, Craig, upon further research, I agree that it appears that Wesley did hold to a doctrine of inerrancy. I guess that’s another place where Calvin got it right and he got it wrong.
Nice try though Tony, trying to find disagreement where there isn’t any.
We do indeed disagree about inerrancy vs. infallibility, but we do not disagree about reading the Bible “literally”. For the record, the definition of literally I’m using is simply, “in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.” The antonym of literally would be “figuratively”, which is how you read the passage about trees clapping their hands — which is the same way I read it. There are of course, plenty of historical accounts in the Bible that are meant to be read literally. They actually happened the way that they are said to have happened. Others passages, particularly the poetry in the Psalms are metaphorical. The context lets us know the difference. On these points we do not disagree, even if you wish we did. 
Alan,
It was the fact that there were differing uses of the word “literally” that was the problem, was why I responded. Notice that I recommended to Craig that we use the word “accurately” or “correctly” or even better, “rightly,” rather than the word “literally” to avoid this semantical confusion.
We actually agree, no one reads the whole Bible “literally.” We read it literally where it was intended to be literal, and we read historically where it is historical narrative, etc. This is reading it “rightly.”
Many times conservatives say, “I read the Bible literally” when what they mean is “I read the Bible “rightly,” but liberals hear them saying “I read it all literally even where it isn’t meant to be literal.” I was trying to clarify this confusion.
The truth is, we agree on these definitions, just not on which parts are which. I was more trying to agree than disagree, but you love to accuse me of that don’t you?
tr
Alan,
As far as the historical view of inerrancy, my authority is Jesus and the Word of God. Jesus said “Thy Word is true.” Jesus said that every jot and tiddle would be fulfilled. Jesus always affirmed the truthfulness of all the Scriptures, as does the Word of God. “All Scriptures are inspired of God…” Anyone holding to a different view than Jesus on the matter, well, they can take that up with Him.
tr
P.S. If this one Scripture is inspired and true, then they all are. God doesn’t breath error.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” 2 Timothy 3:16
“I was more trying to agree than disagree, but you love to accuse me of that don’t you?”
No, and it’s clear with this statement, “so people like Alan can create straw men of us believing trees are slamming their leaves together.” that you weren’t attempting to agree.
Our agreement was over the fact that we were using different definitions of the word literal. Our disagreement was that the definition you were claiming we were using wasn’t accurate and was indeed a straw man.
tr
“Our disagreement was that the definition you were claiming we were using wasn’t accurate and was indeed a straw man.”
Again, here’s what I said, “I highly doubt anyone actually reads the whole Bible completely literally.” So, I’m not sure what you think that means, but it seems pretty clear that I was not saying whatever you thought I was saying.
Thanks for your clarification. I don’t wish to belabor the point.
tr
Me too … uh… neither.
Good advice Tony about using different language such as accurate, rightly or correct instead of literal. But I think for guys like Alan any language you or I use will get twisted and mis-applied. Alan is like Bill Clinton, “it depends what the meaning of the word is, is!”
” But I think for guys like Alan any language you or I use will get twisted and mis-applied. ”
Oh Craig, get real. ROFL I’ve been using the real definition (ie. dictionary definition) of the words inerrant, infallible, and literal here.
What’s hilarious is that YOU are the one twisting the meanings of words by saying that I read the Bible “literally.” Nice try…but look in the mirror sometime, buddy. LOL One would think that a minister would actually know what he was talking about. You might ask for your seminary tuition money back.
Thank’’s Craig. That’s a good word. Here’s a help for them:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/is
Can either of you tell me which word exactly I was misusing and how exactly I did so? Oh, and just for fun, can you use exact quotes to substantiate it? ROFL.
I can understand that you probably don’t like being corrected, but you should take it gracefully and be happy that your error has been pointed out to you.
Alan, the problem in trying to discuss anything with you is this. You think you have highly developed skills in trying to make the other person look less enlightened than yourself. Your style is to twist, belittle or side step the issue with your debate rules or code of logic. You don’t really address the issue I don’t think, instead you try to defend and cover up your errors with style or cleaver remarks. I think commenting on blogs that you disagree with is a game with you. My personal opinion is that you are a guy who was raised a traditional evangelical, but is now trying desperately to defend a lifestyle that is incompatible with scripture and orthodox traditional Christianity. It sure comes through in your blog comments in my opinion.
“You don’t really address the issue I don’t think, ”
LOL. Nice try, Craig.
In fact, I simply corrected your ideas regarding inerrancy & infallibility in my first comment. You then attempted to confuse the matter by rabbit trailing the topic to literal interpretations, Now you respond, not by addressing my statements & questions, but by attacking me. I guess when you can’t actually discuss the substance, it feels good to try to go after the style, eh?
I assume that, in fact, you can’t answer my very simple question in my previous comment and would prefer to simply go farther off topic.
“My personal opinion is that you are a guy who was raised a traditional evangelical, but is now trying desperately ….”
Um… sorry buddy, but you know nothing about me. However, feel free to continue with the pedantic armchair psychology. It’s entertaining, but again, doesn’t actually address the topic YOU brought up in the first place, which is inerrancy.
Alan,
What he said.
As I’ve said before Alan, due to what Craig has written regarding your “style,” don’t confuse avoidances of discussions with you with intellectual surrender.
I believe what Craig was really trying to say was, “when you wrestle with a pig, you both end up getting dirty, but the pig likes it.” At some point, one can conclude that they have bigger fish to fry, or bigger pigs to BBQ. Discernment over the value of continuing a dialog with you is not surrendering the point.
As far as the issue goes, the point I was making was that when a conservative says, “I take the Bible literally,” if liberals hear and conclude that the conservative believes that leaves “clap their hands” literally,” then they are using a different definition of the word “literal” than the conservative is using. Moreover, one that is grammatically wrong and hermeneutically illiterate.
My exhortation to Craig was that this confusion can sometimes be avoided (with honest liberals) by using terms like “correctly,” or “rightly,” or “as the author intended,” in place of “literal,” since it is such a loaded word in our culture with a duality of meanings which depend on one’s presuppositions. Ironically, my comment was intended to exhort Craig, and he got it.
tr
“‘I take the Bible literally,’ if liberals hear and conclude that the conservative believes that leaves ‘clap their hands’ literally, then they are using a different definition of the word ‘literal; than the conservative is using. Moreover, one that is grammatically wrong and hermeneutically illiterate.”
Hermeneutically illiterate, yes because obviously the conservative doesn’t actually mean every part literally. But it is not grammatically wrong. Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word “literal.” Oh, wait… I’ll do it for you:
“in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.” Dictionary.com.
NOT figurative. NOT metaphorical. Strict meaning. In other words, what the conservative really means is that they take some parts of the bible literally. It would be more grammatically and hermeneutically accurate to say they interpret the Bible as the author intended.
But in any event, that’s just another more attempt at changing the subject. I never said Craig read the Bible literally. Nor did I “twist” his words to suggest that was the case. Instead, as I said before, “I highly doubt anyone actually reads the whole Bible completely literally.” You’re still trying to turn that into some sort of bizarre straw man even though I’ve repeated that same assertion about a dozen times now, and are unable to recognize that I agree with you, and have since the beginning. ROFL
As I’ve repeated about 10 times now, “I highly doubt anyone actually reads the whole Bible completely literally.” And what was Craig’s response to that? “But I think for guys like Alan any language you or I use will get twisted and mis-applied.”
Huh?
Um… nope. Tony and I are in complete agreement here. You two are just trying to find something to argue about, as usual.
One more time, for emphasis: “I highly doubt anyone actually reads the whole Bible completely literally.”
Once again … how exactly am I misusing the term “literal” there? Oh, right… I’m not. You might have missed where I wrote above, “For the record, the definition of literally I’m using is simply, ‘in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.’ The antonym of literally would be ‘figuratively’, which is how you read the passage about trees clapping their hands — which is the same way I read it.” Apparently that’s “twisting” the definition of words, according to Craig. He’s a big boy, Tony…if he wants to explain how I was twisting the meaning of the word, I’m sure he’ll be able to.
Alan
If you knew what I meant, and you did, why do you make such a big deal out of it? Tony is right, I don’t have the time or the desire to split hairs with you. Who was it, Socrates who was forced to drink Hemlock because dialogue with him was such an annoyance and hassle? It was one of those Greek philosophers who apparently was your mentor.
Alan,
That was exactly the point I was making to Craig. The conservative is conveying the wrong opinion to the liberal by the use of that word. In creates unnecessary confusion because when the liberal or non-believer hears “literal” they think of the classic definition and thus concludes wrongly that person thinks “literal” of the whole Bible (even the non-literal parts).
My point was that when the conservative often says “literal” they mean “as the author intended,” which is not the classic definition or usage of the term, so we should quit using it.
Now that the hair is split in two and the horse is dead, can we just move on. Alan when we’ve talked in the past and I’ve explained to you how you always take any conversation down to this level, where we are doing this with words, that I suspect your are doing it on purpose… THIS is what I was talking about.
tr
Alan,
I should introduce you to Iggy. A dialog between you two would be like the the Ultimate Fighting championship compared to amateur boxing.
Emmm boy, and hummm-dinger!
tr
“If you knew what I meant, and you did, why do you make such a big deal out of it?”
Actually I didn’t make a big deal about it. I simply corrected you by saying that I’d never said that I read the Bible literally. Then Tony chimed in with, “Alan’s views of inerrancy, infallibility, literal readings, and church history reminds me of the movie Back To The Future 2, where Marty was off in Biff’s alternate reality.” and “so people like Alan can create straw men of us believing trees are slamming their leaves together.”
Which of course I didn’t say at all, and in fact stated quite the opposite — several times. A fact you two seem not to be able to recognize.
My initial comments were about the authority of the Bible … responding to your first comment. Then I responded to your continued off-topic assertions that I was creating some sort of straw man out of the word “literal.”
It’s hilarious how convoluted you folks make these comment threads. I discuss inerrancy & infallibility and you accuse me of creating some sort of straw man about “literal” readings of the Bible and twisting the meanings of words — a topic I didn’t even bring up. Then, when I correct your misunderstandings and misstatements, I’m the bad guy. (Oh, and don’t forget to add a dollop of psychobabble in there for good measure…but that’s not an “annoyance and a hassle, apparently.)
Tony… You’re the one who chimed in with “so people like Alan can create straw men of us believing trees are slamming their leaves together”, which you clearly know to be false. And false statements like this aren’t helpful either, “I think for guys like Alan any language you or I use will get twisted and mis-applied. Alan is like Bill Clinton, ‘it depends what the meaning of the word is, is!’” If you guys don’t like the direction these conversations take, then perhaps you shouldn’t start down that path in the first place. It would be so much easier to simply read what I write, rather than look for ways to disagree on things we’re in complete agreement about. Just a thought. (But then, I suspect you do such things on purpose.)
McFly! McFly!
tr
LOL. What color is the sky in your fantasy world?