Will you stand or waffle?

by   T. C. Pinckney                                                                                                                                          Vol. XI, No. 3, March 1998

For the Antiheritage selection this issue I have quoted the following paragraph from the book, How I Have Changed My Mind, Essays by Retired Professors of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, (Review and Expositor, Louisville, 1993). The quote is from pp 35-6 and is part of the article contributed by Dr. Frank Stagg, professor of New Testament at Southern 1964-1982.

I have come to see that those using such terms as "inerrant" and "infallible" may mean well, but they do not thus honor the Bible. To begin with, they go outside the Bible for these terms and the ideas behind them, whether to tradition or reason. In so doing, they appeal to authority thus made higher than the Bible. Why is it not enough to let the Bible speak for itself? Further, those who employ such terms as "infallible" and "inerrant" may intend to say something about the Bible, but actually they are saying something about themselves. Only an "inerrant" judge can make such a judgment. The very presumption of claiming to be orthodox I see as the ultimate heresy, the idolatry of denying one's own finitude and fallibility and the non-finality of all that we call human knowledge. The authority of the Bible is in fact acknowledged not in creeds but in compliance.

By way of contrast and Heritage consider the following quote from The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, first published in December 1525 as De Servo Arbitrio, Latin being the scholarly language of the time. Luther was replying to Erasmus’ book Diatribe seu collatio de libero arbitrio (Discussion concerning Free Will). In short, Erasmus argued that while grace is necessary for salvation, man’s free will is also essential. Luther took the opposite stance, that the free will of an unsaved man is only and completely evil and that the sole saving factor is God’s sovereign grace. Luther writes:

Away, now, with Skeptics and Academics from the company of us Christians; let us have men who will assert, men twice as inflexible as the very Stoics! Take the Apostle Paul — how often does he call for that ‘full assurance’ which is, simply, an assertion of conscience, of the highest degree of certainly and conviction. ... Nothing is more familiar or characteristic among Christians than assertion. Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity. Why, the Holy Spirit is given to Christians from heaven in order that He may glorify Christ and in them confess Him even unto death — and is this not assertion, to die for what you confess and assert? ... [p 67 of the Revell 1993 edition)

 Like many liberal statements Stagg’s complaint that conservatives “go outside the Bible for these terms and the ideas behind them” is only partially true and therefore completely misleading. The accurate formulation is that the words “inerrant” and “infallible” do not appear in the Bible. But clearly Jesus expressed the concept of inerrancy in Matthew 5:18 (“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”), not to mention other passages.

Second, Stagg’s sentence, “Only an ‘inerrant’ judge can make such a judgment.” is incorrect. Must I be beautiful to recognize and appreciate beauty? Must you be a professional football player to say that Bret Favre is a football superstar? No, recognition of a quality is not dependent upon possession of that quality.

Now note the self-defeating impact of Stagg’s words in the latter part of his paragraph: “the non-finality of all that we call human knowledge.” One may reasonably assume that the good doctor does not really believe that, for were it true, he would have no reason to write the article. If all human knowledge is but provisional, uncertain, unreliable, “non-final,” by what logic does Stagg or anyone else make any statement about any subject, what could the purpose be? His stance is not intellectual, not academic, not logical; indeed, it is quite the opposite of all three. In fact, his prescription consigns all human endeavor and all human understanding of revelation to the insane asylum. His statement leads inevitably to the conclusion that there is no absolute right or wrong, that language only has meaning experientially, that for John God exists because God is meaningful to John, but for Mary God does not exist because Mary feels no need for God. This is sheer post-modernism. (See the review of Postmodern Times in the February Banner.)

Stagg ends his paragraph by writing, “The authority of the Bible is in fact acknowledged not in creeds but in compliance.” Once again there is a kernel of truth here, for creed without compliance is mere hypocrisy. But Stagg attempts to slip by a logical inconsistency by drawing a false dichotomy: Why should not biblical authority be acknowledged in both creed and compliance? Indeed, are not both essential? The word “creed” comes from the Latin verb credere which means “to believe.” And a “creed” is merely a summary of belief. We must know what the Bible says doctrinally, at least in its major doctrines, otherwise we could not (or at least “should not”) claim to be Christians. Likewise, lip service without life service is sterile; Matthew 7:20 “Wherefore by their fruits shall ye know them.” It is not a case of either...or, but rather both...and.

In conclusion, look back at what Luther wrote, “Take away assertions and you take away Christianity.” Thank you, Brother Martin! How glad we should all be that Luther knew what he believed and was willing to work, write, and — if necessary — die standing upon that creed. May we be so bold when we are called upon to take our stands.