Soft on Scripture?

We are planning to have you speak at an event we’re hosting, but we have had a lot of people raise concerns about your theological orthodoxy. In particular, they say you are soft on Scripture. Do you hold to an orthodox Evangelical doctrine of Scripture?

You can be the judge:

I believe that all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, so the people of God can be adequately equipped for all good works. I believe that everything written in the Scriptures is written for our instruction, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope. I believe that God spoke to us through the prophets in various times and various ways, and spoke to us climactically in the Son, who is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of God's being. I believe the Scriptures point to Jesus. I believe that the prophets of Scripture spoke from God and were carried along by the Holy Spirit. I believe some portions of Scripture are hard to understand and people distort them, but I believe the Scriptures can make people wise in a saving way, if we nobly and diligently seek the Scriptures to learn what is true.

Obviously, these are paraphrases of what Scripture says about itself, and I am most comfortable using the language of the Bible to talk about the Bible. I tend not to use words like "inerrant" because these words are part of a modern Enlightenment philosophical system called "foundationalism." Because Evangelicalism was born in a foundationalist environment, these words are very important – even sacred - to traditional Evangelicals. Out of respect for foundationalism and those for whom it provides the intellectual framework for faith, I don’t want to ever speak against these words or deny them. But I don't use these foundationalist terms normally because my ministry setting is more postmodern, which is post-foundationalist. To use these words in my setting would actually decrease people's respect for the Bible, and would cause an obstacle to the gospel.

So, to use these foundationalist terms in some settings shows deep reverence for the Bible, and in other settings, can be unintentionally disparaging of the Bible. Stan Grenz and John Franke's "Beyond Foundationalism" is a great introduction to these issues, as is Nancey Murphy's "Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism."

I should add that I have been a pastor for over two decades, preaching almost every Sunday, and often many times per week, and all of my sermons are rooted in the Scriptures, show reverence for the Scriptures, and seek to use the Scriptures as they were intended – to equip the people of God for good work in our needy world. Many of my sermons are available at our church’s website for online listening or download (www.crcc.org); how I actually use the Scriptures in my ministry is probably more important than what I say I believe about them. Again – you may be the judge.

By the way, whether or not I use terms like inerrancy regarding the Bible, I am quick to say that my Biblical interpretations and my sermons, like my opinions in general, are far from inerrant! I make so many stupid mistakes in so many ways, which is why I need grace and truth – revealed in Christ, and through the Scriptures.