O, Timothy!

How do you really summarize and bring closure to the transformation that has occurred from memorization of and meditation on a book of the Bible? How could I possibly, in one succinct place, completely explain the amazing effect that Paul's first letter to Timothy has had on my life? How could I do it justice? How do I count the ways?

Well, same way I would count to 14. Or at least, I listed to 14 and then just stopped. This should at least scratch the surface. So, in no particular order, and acknowledging much overlap, here, almost two months after the fact, are the 14 themes from 1 Timothy that have changed my life:

1. Stewardship from God

God had a plan, has a plan, and is executing a plan, of salvation, not only for the world, but for me. Personally. The entire Bible, and even all of life, is revealing that plan. The Christian life should be a constant, active experience inside the redemptive plan of history, pointing to the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. He has taken great care to present that to us in a way that is understandable, and deserves our attention, adoration, and devotion. In light of this reality, how and why would we devote ourselves to myths, endless genealogies, and speculations? That is a dead end; but in Christ, we have truth, and life, created and sustained for us by the great Redeemer.

2. The aim of our charge is love

What is the end game? When we get to heaven, and our faith is sight, and our hope is fulfilled, what will remain? Love. It is God's nature, and we know it in this: that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And so we make it our aim now, and flowing from that central aim is a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. What God promises in us and through us will not be in vain, and so we make it our aim to love, since He first loved us.

3. Good conscience

The importance of a good, or clear, conscience, has definitely dominated my time in 1 Timothy. The understanding and practice of this is liberating. Paul identifies a good conscience as one of the key elements in our main aim as Christians. In other words, without a good conscience, we likely fail in our aim to love others, and certainly to love God. Paul charges Timothy in light of the battle of the Christian life, to hold faith and a good conscience. In reference to deacons, and those who serve in the church, Paul says that they are to hold onto the faith with a clear conscience. He says about those that have devoted themselves to deceitful spirits, the teachings of demons, and the insincerity of liars, that their consciences have been seared. The picture here is striking. Think Ahi Tuna. To Titus, Paul says that to those who are corrupted, and not pure, their consciences are corrupted. Paul has much to say to the Corinthians about conscience, and how to act in such a way as not to cause those with a weaker conscience to stumble. Weak, in this sense, is not necessarily bad or unclear, it is just sensitive, perhaps from past experience or former vulnerability. We should be building those with a weak conscience up, instead of causing them to stumble, further de-sensitizing their conscience. The author of Hebrews says that the Old Testament sacrificial system was not able to clear the consciences of the worshippers, yet, the blood of Christ is able to cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death so that we may serve the living God. And later, he says that we are to draw near to God with a sincere heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience. The author says that we are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way.

Are we sure? Are you sure? How is one sure? Clearly, this is a theme in the Christian life, and 1 Timothy highlighted this for me powerfully. The image of my conscience being seared, no longer able to distinguish good from evil, and launching me into ruin and destruction, is terrifying. Yet, not debilitating! How do we prevent it? By having our powers of discernment trained by constant practice. How do we do that? I thought of it this way. In every part of my life, is there an active pursuit to flee sin and run to God? And even when I fail in that pursuit, is my conscience clear through repentance, and repeated "sprinkling" with the blood of Jesus? Or are there areas where, even subtly, my active pursuit for holiness has become passive, my ability to discern whether my daily actions, even small ones, are pleasing to God, and my attentiveness to react or repent has been weakened (or less prioritized)? If so, probably my conscience is being weakened, even seared. This can play out is such basic ways.

For example, I avoid at all costs being alone with another woman in a business or social context, and tell my wife when it is unavoidable, even for a short time. The other day I told her that I was at lunch with two people, one a man and one a woman, and when the man went to the bathroom, I was alone at the table with the woman. Why did I bother to tell my wife that? For one thing, because someone could have seen just the two of us in passing and perhaps been confused. But almost more importantly, I told her so that my conscience was aware and clear that in general, being alone with a woman, not my wife, is bad. And so if I train myself to be sensitive to this when it is unavoidable and no big deal, doesn't it stand to reason that my conscience will prevent me from either accidentally, or intentionally, being in this situation when it is a big deal? I think so. This is just an example that works for me. Perhaps, if you are a man, and wouldn't think twice about this kind of situation, you should consider doing so?

How about another one. Do you struggle with pride? Let me answer that for you: yes. For me, not having someone (or multiple someones) in my life pouring into me, holding me accountable, asking whether I'm checking my convictions against Scripture, asking whether I'm living my convictions with others, and challenging me when I'm not teachable, would be devastating to my conscience. I know because I didn't really have this for about 7 years. By the grace of God, now I'm married, and under the authority of a local church, and in close fellowship with other men! And my conscience is clear. 1 Timothy reinforced this in so many areas in my life. Am I looking for up to 3 seconds at a racy photo online, on TV, or on a billboard, or at a woman in a restaurant? That is too long. Am I avoiding conversation and dialogue with my co-workers? That is the path to laziness and lack of compassion. Am I drifting toward unloving disagreement with fellow Christians? That is hardening my heart. Am I hitting the snooze for too long? That is demolishing the opportunity for precious time with my Savior. Is my prayer life more characterized by random conversation with God, rather than intentional pleading with him in supplication, thanksgiving, and intercession? That is the way to no prayer life at all. Are my possessions dominating my thoughts? Do I think more about what is the next addition to my library, than about what God is teaching me through any of the various books included in that library, or more importantly, through His book?

You may say all this is overkill, and even legalistic, but O, that the consciences of Christians would not be weakened, seared, or killed in our life to our everlasting shame! The joy of a clear conscience in the presence of Jesus is so sweet.

4. Swerving from the faith

All that talk about conscience is a good transition to the next theme, namely, Paul's repeated focus to Timothy about the danger of swerving from the faith. Think about the concept of swerving from the faith. If it does not frighten you to some extent, you might be doing so. I say that with a firm and unbreakable conviction that Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of your faith. He will not lose one (see my post As Sure as the Sun Will Set, for more on this). But if the healthy fear of your proneness to wonder is not actively acknowledged and addressed by seeking Jesus, you may have a problem. Think of yourself on a raft in a river with a strong current. If you're not making an effort to move towards the shore, which direction do you think you'll go? John Piper has painted this picture for me before, but in 1 Timothy I see Paul pleading with people, through Timothy, who may be relaxing on the raft with the earphones of this world distracting them from the cliff they are approaching.

Paul says that certain persons have swerved from a pure heart, good conscience, and sincere faith, which create the aim of love in our charge, and they have wandered away into vain discussion. He says they desire to be teachers of the law, but do not understand either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. So the raft imagery is not always people relaxing with the distractions of the world dominating their attention; it could also be people standing up and saying or advocating things that are just untrue or dangerous. Perhaps Jesus is not central in their assertions. That would certainly take them towards the cliff, and they may not even know it!

Elsewhere Paul, after charging Timothy to hold faith and a good conscience, in light of the prophecy made about him, says that some have rejected this and made shipwreck of their faith. So now picture the raft as a boat, and the rejection of faith and conscience is a straight path into a reef, and a shipwreck. Those do not end well. And if it wasn't enough, people in this category Paul says he has handed over to Satan, that they may learn not to blasphemy. A lot more could be said about that concept, but suffice it to say, that does not necessarily mean hand over to Satan for eternal torment (hopefully!), but for the purpose of them seeing the error in their ways and coming back to God.

This theme is so present in this letter. Chapter 4 begins with the statement of truth that in later times, some will depart from the faith. They will. They are among us now, they may me in a small group, God forbid, they may lead a small group. But the Spirit expressly says - not might be saying - but expressly says, that there will be a time when they won't be here anymore. They will have devoted themselves to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, and through the insincerity of liars their consciences will have been seared. They will be confused about food and marriage. They will depart. How do we prevent this, in ourselves, or others? The rest of the chapter gives the method, and I will highlight that later.

But lets take a quick second to imagine how this could happen practically. Paul says that everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. We may not abstain from foods, or forbid marriage (my wife and I love cooking while watching the Food Network, which I guess would be the double whammy), but Paul says everything. What all do we fail to recognize from God and fail to give thanks, and fail to even consider the connection to the word of God and prayer? This is very convicting and powerful. Saying a prayer before a meal is not a burdensome routine. It can and should be a precious application of Scripture to the glory of God. Same thing when you have a good day at work. Or when you have a bad day. Or when you have fun with friends. Or when you experience nature. EVERYTHING created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. What will stop us from departing from the faith if we are not considering this perspective with everything in our lives?

Paul is not done. About the rich, he warns that the desire for riches leads to temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that cause ruin and destruction. He says that through the craving for riches some have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. Ouch. At risk of oversimplifying, what is the application here? Don't desire money. You can have it, but check your desire. It could destroy you. Paul ends the letter pleading with Timothy to avoid irreverent babble and contradictions that are falsely called knowledge, because by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Paul doesn't want us to swerve. Hold faith! Train your conscience! Take hold of eternal life! Don't coast!

5. Sound doctrine

I am writing too much. But how could I not?! This theme is dear to my heart. God has convicted me of it for some time, and if you've read any of this blog before, you know that. See This is the Word of God, or The Whole Counsel of God for more from me on this. Paul encourages Timothy to charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine. He says that the law is for those who practice whatever is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God. He says that if you put these things, namely the practice of giving thanks for everything God created, before the brothers, you will be a good servant, trained in the words of the faith and the good doctrine you have followed. He says that if anyone teaches a different doctrine, and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. Nothing. He says, O Timothy! Guard the deposit entrusted to you.

What is he saying? Well, one thing he is saying is that there is unsound doctrine. One things he has to mean is that there is a different doctrine. There are words that are contrary to those of Jesus. There is teaching that does not accord with godliness. How in vain we dismiss our different interpretations of Scripture as reason to think there is no correct interpretation! There is. What else would Paul be saying here? While I have labored over this point in various posts, here I will take you to Luke 24. Jesus, after he rose from the dead, appeared on the road to Emmaus, and later to his disciples. What did he say to them? What did he care about? He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. He opened up their minds to understand the Scriptures. He said, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Thus, it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." Was that just Jesus' interpretation? No. Those are the sound words. That is the sound doctrine. We are to hold it!

And we are to watch it. If we watch it closely, alongside our life, which should confirm it, what does Paul tell Timothy will happen? We will save both ourselves and our hearers. This charge has transformed the way I think about and live the Christian life. I first was taken by it through a conference talk by Matt Chandler on 1 Timothy 4 and what it looks like to "shepherd unregenerate sheep". Chandler says that this verse is saying that there is a way to preach (proclaim) and a way to live (demonstrate) that confirms the presence of the Spirit, or the absence of the Spirit, in people's lives. We have to do both, though. We can't just preach by our actions, and we can't just make our actions preaching. But there is a way to balance both faithfully that reveals what God is doing in other people. This has informed the way I interact at work, in church community, and in my family. God blessed me greatly at my wedding rehearsal dinner where my dad, during his toast, confirmed the effectiveness of this in he and my mom. Amazing grace! My wife has confirmed the same. And I confirm it in her! Praise God! I pray this is just the beginning, as balancing this is a lifelong challenge, for me, and for you!

6. Faith and love

These two words are together a lot in the Bible. Often, they are accompanied by hope. In 1 Timothy though, just the pair is used in several places. Paul says that the grace of our Lord overflowed for him, with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Grace through faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. He says about women, that they will be saved through child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love (and holiness). Faith and love saves? Paul tells Timothy to set for the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in faith, in love, and in purity. Faith and love as an example. He says to flee from the temptations of riches, and to pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, and gentleness. Faith and love, among other things, as a means to flee those things that would cause us to swerve away from Jesus. What are we to make of these words used together so often? Well, certainly, they are not used exclusively; many other words are used with them that are of great value to us. But they do appear to be highlighted by Paul for a reason. What I can gather is that they embody Jesus. Faith in Jesus brings us to him, love is what flows from Him through us once we are in Him, and faith is what holds us in Him, made possible by His love. So faith is what brings us to, and keeps us in, Jesus, and love is what made and what makes faith possible, and is what embodies Jesus so fully that once we are in Him it flows through us also. They cannot be separated.

7. But I received mercy

Can anyone say that Paul's testimony is not also their own? But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief. We're all ignorant. We lived in unbelief and the only way we could have escaped that ignorance and unbelief is if God opened our hearts and minds by his mercy. He did not have to do that, and be God. But he did! That is mercy. And the grace he gave in this overflowed! It is unending. Paul goes on to say that he received mercy for a reason. What reason? Did I receive mercy for a reason? Yes! What? So that Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example for those who were to believe in Him for eternal life. That truth requires a doxology. Bring it Paul: To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen!

Peter talks about how we are now marked by mercy. It is like we are branded. He says that once we were not a people, but now we are God's people. Once - we had not received mercy, but now, we have! It should define us! Does it?

8. Jesus came to save sinners

This theme is so straight forward, yet transforming, I need not bother to write more than required. Why did Jesus come into the world? Why did the Second Person of the Trinity, who by whom and through whom the world was created, and who upholds the universe by the word of his power; why did he come to earth as a human baby? There must have been a reason! Yes. It was to save sinners. Let's not add to that. There is so much depth to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so much purpose and plan set in motion before the foundation of the world; so much was happening and so much was accomplished, and it is bigger than any of us, and more wonderful and profound than we could ever articulate. But we know this: He came to save sinners. Period.

9. I am the foremost

And guess what? I am the foremost. I am the worst sinner I know. And he came to die for me. And for you! I recently had a dialogue on a blog about whether we needed to refer to ourselves as the worst sinner we know. Some didn't think this was necessary. Such self-hatred is unhealthy, they say. Clearly, there are worse sinners than us. Right? I mean, like Hitler. Come on! I went on to explain why I think this misunderstands sin just a tad. Here is what I said:

"The reason I think it’s important for you and maybe others to consider is that it’s kind of built-in accountability and humility. If I am the worst sinner I know, than I can never look down on someone else as worse than me, puffing up my spiritual pride and derailing my trajectory within the grace of God, and reducing my ability to love them as more important than myself (1 John). God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. So that’s where I try to be, and it’s not easy. But if I wasn’t the worst sinner I know, and I know my sin (I don’t know anyone else’s), than it would be really hard!

"Don’t take this concept to the extreme, comparing to Hitler or serial killers or what not. I’m trying to live where I am. I don’t interact with the Hitlers of the world. But if Paul, converted by the power of the Holy Spirit, and conformed into the likeness of Christ to the point where God commissioned him to take the gospel to the Gentiles, and inspired him to write much of the NT, giving clarification and perspective on the Christian life, and encouragement and rebuke to churches, if this man considered himself the chief of sinners, what does that make me? If I were to compare, I clearly would fall short of even the standard he sets, not to mention Jesus!

"So considering myself the worst of sinners is just perspective for me that the sin I have, and have been freed from the penalty of, yet still subjected to the power and presence of, is the same sin as the next guy. Not Hitler (although theologically I would argue it is), but my neighbor who lets his dog poop on my lawn, or my friend from college who struggled with sexual temptation two times a week more than me. If I didn’t consider myself the “worst”, what would stop my prideful heart from ranking those people “less godly” than me because all observable evidence shows I am slightly better? The internal, unobservable evidence is more significant.

"When I say 'worst sinner', I don’t mean 'commit the worst sins', even though in some cases that may be true. I mean I have indwelling sin that is capable of the worst sins, and since I know my sin and what I’ve done (I don’t know what you’ve done), than logically I am the worst sinner I know. I think this is very helpful for the Christian life, and frankly, the alternative is unimaginable to me."

10. Household of God

Church is a family. How awesome is that? Paul writes to Timothy and says that he hopes to come to him soon, but is writing so that if he delays, Timothy may know how we ought to behave in the household of God. We are the family of God, and not just God, but the living God. Coming to church during the time I have been meditating on this book has been so sweet, and although I don't know everyone at my church the same way I know my family, there is something special about being among the people of God in corporate worship. God didn't have to reveal His glory this way, but he did! He does! The element of community that this theme highlights is so important to me. We need arms and legs and elbows and hands and feet and earlobes in the body of Christ, all walking in the manner worthy of the calling to which we have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

11. Pillar of truth

Not only is our community to be the household of God, the church of the living God, but it is to be a pillar and buttress of the truth. Our charge is to guard the truth that leads to life. I said much about this is my previous post. The church is to guard the truth that leads to life. That is a weighty charge. It has life and death implications. The truth isn't just fun, or helpful, or prestigious, or profitable; it leads to life! Without it, we get death. Think about that. Truth is not a component of the pathway to life. It is the pathway. Jesus said to Pilate, "For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world— to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." After this, Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" Why didn't Jesus answer his question? Well, maybe he did. It's just not recorded. But by the grace of God, this truth is not elusive to us. It is Jesus. And Jesus leads to life. He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, and taken up in glory. 

12. Train Yourself for Godliness

Godliness matters. Holiness matters. Paul wants us to the keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Cheap grace is a different doctrine. Kevin DeYoung has said that one thing that the young reformed resurgence in the church has not been clear enough about is the pursuit of holiness. I think he is right and at least for me that is very convicting. I just finished reading The Disciplines of Grace by Jerry Bridges, and that is perhaps another post. I also am embarking on a small group community life experience on the concept (Biblical concept, by the way) of mortifying (killing) sin, so I know God has only scratched the surface of his speaking to me in this area, and I will have much more to communicate in the near future! But for now, Paul charges Timothy to actively pursue godliness.

What is godliness? God-like-ness? What is God like? Jesus? So, we are just to be like Jesus? Is that even possible (in this life)? What if we just shoot for Paul-like-ness? Isn't that more obtainable (the answer is probably no)? Is that sufficient?

No. Even though Paul said to imitate his way of life, he also said, I am the foremost. Which is it? What is his way of life? How can an active pursuit of "godliness", which is Jesus-like-ness, be a good thing, if it is virtually unobtainable? Aren't we just setting ourselves up for disappointment? How about if we just continue in sin, so that grace may abound?

If that were the case, what does Paul mean by "train yourselves for godliness"? Apparently, there is a value to actively pursuing godliness. And thankfully, we are not left with little or unclear instruction on how this works, or what the benefit is. What is the benefit? Bodily training is of some value, but godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and the life to come. It is of value in every way. It is beneficial in every way possible! Now, valuable and beneficial does not mean we pursue it for our own gain. Oh, no. Paul doesn't let us get away with that. In fact, if we stray from the teaching that accords with the godliness that we are to pursue, we are puffed up with conceit and understand nothing. That would be idiotic. If we do that, it shows that we have an unhealthy craving for controversy that causes envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people. If we do that we show ourselves to be depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. God forbid!

But how does it work? How do we train ourselves for godliness? How was Paul saying it could work for Timothy? It could work for Timothy because he had been trained in the words of the faith. That means he had been nourished, brought up in the words of the faith, the Scriptures. It gave him spiritual strength. Does it give it us strength? Are we letting it? How else does it work? By avoiding things that are silly, and irrelevant, and by making an intentional effort to set apart your life for God's purposes. Intentional effort, because this does not happen automatically.

But Paul says that godliness is ultimately a mystery. And the fact that it is a mystery does not mean it is unimportant. Quite the contrary. It means it is amazing. It means that the gospel is that God is making us like Him; He is making us holy. How is he doing that? Through His life (he was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels), and through the church (he was proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory). How is our church life? Well, that is where Christ's work is being proclaimed and believed, so that is where we need to be. I am so thankful it is where I am.

And how do we make this reality, this mystery, our own? How do we move past being disciplined, or active in our pursuit of godliness, just for the sake of itself? Train yourself for godliness, so you can be godly, because God is making you godly. Is that it? What if he doesn't? How do we know? Paul says, "to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on God, who is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe." We hope.

13. Hope set on God

We hope! To this end we toil and strive. How could we do that without hope? We can't. Paul prays for the Colossians that they would be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience, with joy! So we need strength to hope. We need to understand that the Christian life is not easy, but that is so far from meaning it is hopeless! Any notion in our society, or in some cases even within the church, that implies that the Christian life brings prosperity and health as a direct result, is blasphemy, and blown out of the water by Colossians 1:11. That type of promise would leave so little room for hope. Who hopes for what he sees? Paul prays that we have power, so that we can endure and be patient. Endure what? Be patient in what? Our good health? No! In hardship, which is common life for the Christian. And he prays that we can have this endurance, and patience, with joy.  You can't really force joy, you know? Think about being in the middle of a trial, perhaps loss or serious illness, or lack, and just trying to be joyful. Like an apple tree trying to push out an apple by sheer force. But you can't. Its not automatic. You want to have joy, but it doesn't come. What do you do?!

Root your life in hope. What hope? I just lost my job, my life is a wreck, I can't pay the bills, I feel physically terrible. What hope? Hope that these light and momentary afflictions are producing for you a weight of glory far beyond all comparison. Hope that the sufferings of this life are not even worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed in us. Hope that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, died as a sacrifice and payment for our sins, and God raised him from the dead, conquering death and revealing that the sacrifice he made on our behalf was approved by the Father and we can one day raise with him in glory. And there is coming a day, when he will come back and make all things new. He will wipe away every tear, and there will be no more suffering or death!

Stop for a second.

Think about that. Quantify the comparison. 80 years of suffering. Eternity of perfect joy. It is real! Hope in that!

Paul says to the Colossians that we were once alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds. He says to the Ephesians that we were dead in the trespasses and sins in which we once walked; we were at one time alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. No hope! Are we still there? No! We have had the eyes of our hearts enlightened, Paul says, that we may know the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe. What power? The power that God worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places. The same power that Paul is  praying about for the Colossians so that they would endure with joy. And the same power that is what we need as we toil and strive (not coast) in the Christian life. The same power that the widow, for example, rests in as she has been left all alone. She hopes! And continues in supplications and prayers night and day. What a model for all of us, in our various situations.

And if even this hope does not come at first, my experience has taught me that the application is to not shift. Sometimes, we can't force hope or joy, even when we want to. Intellectually Christ is more beautiful than our sin and is worth our suffering, but we just can't talk our hearts into feeling this reality and acting on it. What do we do? We don't shift. We plant ourselves at the cross. Paul says in Colossians that if we continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, then he will present you blameless on that day. Don't shift! Sometimes it is hard to hope. But if you remain steady, not shifting one way or the other from the hope you may not yet even have, it will come.

How do you know if you've shifted from the hope of the gospel? Here are some questions that help you know: Do you have a heart for the lost today? Do you have a heart for the poor? Do you have an eternal perspective in trials? Are you enslaved to selfishness? Are you enslaved to the fear of man? Are you not confessing sin? Are you seeking satisfaction in other things? Are the spiritual disciplines a part of your routine? Take heed! You may be shifting! Go back to the hope of the gospel, and wait there until God shows up. And he will! O, that you would know that he will!

14. Take hold of eternal life

Finally, the charge to take hold of the eternal life to which I was called and about which I made the good confession, has been life-changing. I have looked for, and have seen, daily applications of this. I suppose it will take a lifetime to completely articulate this wonderful reality. But suffice it to say that the picture of me, as a Christian, taking hold of something - like, physically grabbing it - has been helpful and transforming. How do you grab eternity?

Flee! Run from those things that are obviously bad (Galatians 5). You are a man of God! And pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. What does that look like, specifically? Well, I reckon there are a million ways to describe what that looks like. I'll mention one: Look to Jesus.

I mean, look to him! Do you see him? What does he look like? Is he smiling? What is his nature to you? What is his relation to you? I mean, specifically, who is he?? Do you see him? What about him is striking to you? Surely, something is. Look!

Consider his Father: He is invincible. He is immortal; he alone has immortality. He just is. He dwells in unapproachable light. He is beyond the reaches of sinful people. He is invisible. He is beyond human sight and comprehension. He is Eternal. He is Sovereign. He created the structures of language that make this sentence intelligible. He created the resources in creation and capacity in human brains for the Internet to function and this blog to be available.

Yet, Jesus is the image of the invisible God. He is the exact representation of the Father. What? In his face, we see the glory of God. Look to Jesus, and you will see God! He was made visible for our sake. He is not beyond our reach and his nature and work is not beyond our sight or comprehension. And he upholds the universe by the word of his power. Look! Draw near the throne of grace with confidence, made possible by his blood. Look! Do you see him?

With this conviction and desire, and my eyes to Jesus, I approach Paul's letter to the Colossians.

Work Matters to God

William Law:

"Again, let a Tradesman but have this intention, and it will make him a saint in his shop; his everyday business will be a course of wise and reasonable actions, made holy to God, by being done in obedience to his will and pleasure... He will therefore consider, not what arts, or methods, or applications will soonest make him richer and greater than his brothers, or remove him from a shop to a life of state and pleasure; but he will consider what arts, what methods, what application can make worldly business most acceptable to God, and make a life of trade a life of holiness, devotion, and piety. This will be the temper and spirit of every tradesman; he cannot stop short of these degrees of piety, whenever it is his intention to please God in all his actions, as the best and happiest thing in the world."

This is a favorite topic of mine. Expect more where this came from!

This is the Word of God

This post is meant to be primarily a personal testimony to the inerrancy of Scripture, not an argument. Perhaps, though, in some sense my argument in defense of inerrancy is also my testimony. I guess we shall see. Hopefully, you will hear more of an exhortation than a defense. This all originated from a discussion on the topic in the context of the historical nature of Adam and Eve on a comment chain on the Jesus Creed blog, and it has strengthened through memorization and meditation on the Book of 1 Timothy. Memorization can lead to meditation, and meditation always leads to transformation, as my Pastor Dale Shaw says, and models. This is the fruit of that experience.

BACKGROUND

I feel it would be productive to give some background on my experience in these things for any possible newcomers to this blog. To prevent stereotypes being made about me, I’ll just paint a picture to put with my words. The stereotype that may already exist could be exactly right, but at least it won’t be a stereotype anymore, it will be fact. I am 31 year-old, white male from the Midwest, married (for just over two months!), with no children. I am an operations manager for a polyurethane foam fabricator, which is the family business that my grandpa founded and that my father currently owns and manages. I consider myself to be a Christian who happens to be in business, not a businessman who happens to be a Christian, and I feel very convicted that it would be plain disobedience for me to leave this context to go to seminary and full-time ministry, which many have encouraged me towards. I believe the implications of being pastoral in the marketplace with a Christian worldview, a passion for Jesus, involved as a member in a local church, and committed to the authority of Scripture, are not only hugely positive, but also very important, and a calling for which I am very thankful and humbled.

I grew up in the context of a conservative, moral family that participated fairly regularly in the community of an Episcopal Church, where I was baptized as an infant, and confirmed as a teenager. I was presented with the gospel message and the Person and Work of Jesus Christ for the first time in the context of a fraternity at a large public university. Through a loving community and a bold proclamation of the gospel of grace in Jesus, I confronted and admitted my sin, confessed, and received forgiveness in Jesus. After I graduated, God exposed me to the theological foundations of my then-young faith through Scripture, and the writings of certain individuals. Through all this His Spirit convicted me powerfully of the supernatural reality of what had happened in me once and for all (justification and conversion), and also of the nature and fruits of what was continuing to happen to me as evidenced in an increasingly Christ-like existence (sanctification).

During this time, I was confronted with serious challenges to some traditionally held doctrines by people close to me. I soon discovered what those throughout church history have come to know over many years – as articulated by Albert Mohler, that “heresy precedes orthodoxy”. Or, to say it another way, it usually takes a challenge to a biblical truth before that truth is more clearly articulated as orthodox belief (like in the form of a creed). For me, it was initially regarding the Trinity, but then in subsequent years, conversations surrounding the gospel, the church, the historicity of Adam, the creation account in Genesis, assurance of salvation, and so on. There was an underlying trend in all of these examples that I am glad to finally be writing about. Every possible departure from or question of what I understood to be orthodoxy resulted from one main denominator. It always came back to the inerrancy of Scripture.

In the initial experience regarding the Trinity, God, through the accountability of a community of believers, and a passion for and trust in the Bible, convicted me of the importance and fruit of sound doctrine, and guarding the deposit that has been entrusted to us. So, you could say, I have been conditioned to be sensitive to whatever is “contrary to sound doctrine”, as Paul said to Timothy. I don’t think this is a bad thing, and in fact, I think it is a necessary thing in the church, although as you would expect, it comes along with sinful tendencies to judge and jump to conclusions about what people might be saying, or even to a false definition of what is and isn’t “sound doctrine”. I feel like overall I have done a decent job approaching these things with humility, discernment, and awareness of my own sin so as to not weaken my conscience and provoke myself or my discussion partners to anger. I do acknowledge I always need help from God and fellow believers to avoid an "unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people" (1 Timothy 6:4-5).

I attended a non-denominational (well, Christian Church), seeker-sensitive, missional type church for 7 years, and though I had a good experience, I couldn’t shake a lingering frustration and sadness at how vagueness on doctrinal truth, and an only average view and use of Scripture in the preaching and life of the church, seemed to lead to lukewarm Christianity. Not bad people – great people actually; God-fearing and people-loving people. But, in some cases, biblically-illiterate, thin-skinned, lukewarm, more-grace-than-truth Christians; whose uniquely Christian contribution to the surrounding community was not clear, and the fostering of saving faith was perhaps scarce. With a heavy heart, my fiancé (now wife!) and I chose to leave and have since settled at a conservative, truly non-denominational (though originally Baptist) church that preaches verse by verse through the Bible, and describes their mission as “igniting a passion to follow Jesus”. They describe their Sunday services as existing for the main purpose of fueling local and foreign outreach, through the transformed lives, prayer, and giving of their members. They hold a massive prayer service once a month and raised $500K before Christmas for outreach in Pakistan, on top of regular efforts they support around the city and the world. I was baptized by immersion in October, and overall we have been attending for 10 months (members for almost 8), and it is already quite evident what the “fuel” is that ignites this passion to follow Jesus – it is the truth of the gospel found in Scripture. It transforms lives and literally ignites the passion to follow our Lord and Savior, leading to Biblical community and selfless, fruitful missions. For me, I have seen clearly the difference between the lack of this not igniting a passion, and the presence of this actually igniting a real, lasting, cohesive, fruitful passion. I realize not everyone has this specific, clear contrast in experience. But I have had it, and my testimony is what it is.

Finishing the book of 1 Timothy now, we have clearly seen that Paul’s charge to Timothy as a pastor was to guard the truth that leads to life; not just the truth that leads to intellectual ascent; not just the truth that wins arguments; not the truth that changes depending on the modern evidence; not the truth that is subjective and interpreted and prioritized differently depending on your background, experience, or personality; not the truth that is kinda cool and interesting; not the truth that is without grace and love – the truth that leads to life; and the lack of which, leads to death. There is absolute, objective truth that has one interpretation that can be understood and known by man, and that truth leads to life. The Psalmist says, "My soul clings to the dust; give me life according to your word!"

So that is what we as a church are trying to do, and that is what I individually am trying to do, although I recognize this gets complicated (and some would argue unnecessary) when interacting with those from other backgrounds, church affiliations, etc. Obviously I recognize I have no authority over anyone online with my statements, and that no one is accountable to my opinion. But I still believe there is value interacting in public with views that seem to contradict what I (trying to represent Christian orthodoxy) believe to be not in the best interest of the Church. I was driven to the Jesus Creed blog because I came across Scot McKnight when he visited the church I have since left, and as we at the time were going though the Jesus Creed book. I have followed his ministry and been blessed greatly by it, specifically his winsome critique and caution throughout the history of the so-called “emerging church”.

IT’S PERSONAL

At the end of the day, I believe the debate about the inerrancy of Scripture has become quite personal to me. Someone denying the inerrancy of Scripture is closely becoming as absurd to me as someone denying that I am a Christian. I can tell you, I will not abandon my belief in it. Academics and apologists and scientists and atheists and journalists and doctors and professors and (God forbid) pastors have their work cut out for them convincing me that the entire Bible is not the infallible, inerrant, authoritative, completely true, verbally inspired Word of God. I like all those adjectives and I will continue to use them despite the increasing concern that such words alienate non-believers and are an embarrassment to Christians. My conscience is captive to the inerrant Word of God, and to go against conscience is neither right not safe (adaptation on quote from Martin Luther). I will listen to those who disagree, but good luck convincing me. Stubborn, huh?

This blog post is going to try to strike a difficult balance between responding to those who take an academic approach to Scripture, while communicating primarily by means of exhortation to those who take a spiritual and personal approach, and who perhaps doubt or question it without a lot of experience with the academic particulars. My exhortation will hopefully be taken as a help in approaching the Bible so that people see Jesus more clearly. I want people to know and love and trust Scripture, as I do, because I want them to know and love and trust Jesus.

I don’t claim to be a theologian and therefore won’t, at this juncture, reinvent the wheel defending the inerrancy of Scripture from a disciplined, academic, theological perspective. Many have done this, and I am indebted greatly to them (in my generation alone: G.K. Beale, Albert Mohler, Ligon Duncan, D.A. Carson, Michael Horton, etc.). More books are coming out all the time, which confirms the relevancy of this topic, and thankfully, the continued defense of it despite the pressures even within the Evangelical community. Perhaps my interpretation of other well-defended points in defense of inerrancy is for another day. Suffice to say I agree with these people and am thankful that my personal encounter with Scripture can be verified through objective study by those with far more brain power and capacity than yours truly.

I value inerrancy because I believe the Bible to be the revelation of a unique truth about a Person who is God, which cannot be found anywhere else (creation, human thought or discovery, imagination, etc). And the fact that the Bible contains this truth that is the access to this Person, and is reliable as a source for it, and is clear in its presentation of it, is essential to having any confidence that any of us can know it for sure (and therefore know Him for sure), and in turn come to saving faith and have a lasting influence on the world. I suppose it doesn’t have to be “inerrant” to contain this objective, absolute truth and be authoritative, but the reasoning for how it can be the latter without the former is not coherent to me. I am willing to keep listening. If it is God’s Word than it is without error. The working definition I am using of “inerrancy” is that the Bible does not affirm anything contrary to fact in what it teaches. I'm not concerned with what it doesn't teach. Inerrancy by this definition does allow for some limitations in chronology, scientific precision, etc. Inerrancy and authority, for example, is not damaged if the mustard seed is not actually the smallest seed (Matthew 13).

Hopefully I can convince you not to get bogged down with possible factual limitations in a date or a name. Let’s not bicker on the very small amount of discrepancies from the original manuscripts that, even if proved as “error”, are so insignificant to the narrative of the Bible or the message of salvation in Jesus that life is entirely too short to even speak of them. Let’s not talk about the historicity of parables, which Jesus clearly refers to as parables before he explains them, or about clear symbolism in the Bible that is not meant to be taken literally, and no one in Scripture or history, in their right mind, has taken them that way (i.e. much of the Book of Revelation). But let’s talk about the Book of Jonah, which Jesus clearly references as historical, not parable. Let’s talk about those things that are significant and matter because they refer directly to what Jesus said about Himself and about Scripture, and because they relate directly to the gospel. This includes, despite recent debate and supposed scientific and literary evidence, the historical nature of Adam as the first man whose sin impacted every person after him in the form of death and futility and set the stage for the entire redemptive narrative of a Sovereign and gracious God.

MAKING SENSE OF CONSENSUS

I have been interested to learn that some once held to the doctrine of inerrancy, and have been surprised at what it sounds like drove those people from it, namely, intellectual discoveries that seemed to render it invalid. This is shocking to me because a belief in inerrancy does not hold one captive, preventing interaction with other eternal truths revealed outside Scripture, or to anti-intellectualism. Holding to it should never have been dependent on discovery. The foundation of my faith is not an inerrant Bible – it is the Person and Work of Jesus who is the hope of the world. The revelation of Him happens to only be found in that Bible. This is my foundation of knowledge, even while Jesus is the foundation of my faith. Can you have one without the other? I personally come to see Jesus alive and new each day through the pages of Scripture. I don’t think we can encounter Him fully outside of this, though we try. He is the Word of God, and the Bible is the Word of God, so the Bible itself is to us the words of God (grace) revealing Jesus. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit and Scripture can be separated, which is to say, the Holy Spirit can never speak anything contrary to Scripture, and Scripture always speaks through the Holy Spirit to people.

I worry that ultimately what many who deny inerrancy are doing is building the foundation of their understanding of faith, and maybe even the foundation of their faith itself, on academic consensus. To me, that is unsustainable and a constant burden that God did not intend for us. The life, death, resurrection, and enduring promises of Jesus, and how they apply to us individually, the church, and the world, are not fundamentally “intellectually tenable” – they are foolishness (although, of course, the person of Jesus is plenty tenable because He is historical). If everything about our faith has to have an intellectual explanation and academic consensus for it to be considered objectively true, then you might not be left with much in the Christian faith. It is no wonder that it is the Christian “faith”. We need not apologize for the fact that we don’t (and won’t) have all the answers when ministering to non-Christians, and need not worry that such “mystery” in our faith will be an ineffective witness. We do not need to wait on any modern academic community (even the Christian one) to reach consensus on what the Bible clearly communicates as objective truth. In one sense, this is because we already have. Further waiting would essentially be waiting for heresy. To say we are waiting for additional discoveries shows that those discoveries are our foundation for knowledge, not Scripture, which not only puts our faith in something we can’t even know for sure, but also, I think, misunderstands the concept of “progressive revelation”. Revelation is progressive in the sense that the Bible is a narrative communicated over thousands of years, whereby what was less clear in the Old Testament is now more clear in the New. It is not a book of eternal truths, only, that requires progressive discovery or consensus for us to understand.

Besides, we already have a historic consensus. I am very skeptical of those who ridicule church history and orthodoxy more so than embracing it, as if the majority of it was off track. As Ligon Duncan winsomely pointed out in a recent panel on inerrancy at Together For the Gospel, the best of the critics at least admit that the church has always believed that the Bible is inerrant. If now one is convinced that belief must change, so be it. It is the less informed critic who tries to explain that “inerrancy” is not actually what the church fathers, or Paul, or Jesus, believed about Scripture. And it is the less authentic critic who changes his definition of inerrancy or authority to align with current scientific or secular trends.

MY INTUITION IS FALLEN

The other extreme from consensus when it comes to understanding the Bible, is intuition. Michael Christensen in his book C.S. Lewis on Scripture, says, “To fully grasp the essential message of the Bible, an intuitive approach to its literary images is necessary. To try to abstract truth rationally from Scripture or to reduce embodied Reality to absolute propositions is ‘like trying to bottle a sunbeam.’ The Bible simply is not meant to be read that way.”

Hmm. I would contend that if this was the case, I would be in a ditch somewhere. I’m serious; a ditch. Wet and dirty and miserable. And I’d have a worn Bible, and an old smeared piece of cardboard next to me that said, “Help. Please. My intuition is fallen. I can’t experience God and don’t understand this book. What must I do to be saved?”

What the doctrine of inerrancy offers me is confidence that my faith is real. Not dependent on consensus or intuition. It presents the Bible as a clear, true revelation of the God of the Universe that is all we need for life and godliness, and is the only source of the gospel that leads to salvation (however you define “gospel” – some version, hopefully, of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, for individuals and the nation of Israel / the church, and the created order). This is information that is not intuitive and would not be intelligible outside special revelation. Scripture is God’s witness to Himself, not our witness to His revelation. That is a groundbreaking statement. The Bible is not a human attempt to explain God; it is God’s attempt to explain Himself to humans. That is the starting ground for any conversation about the authority and nature of Scripture. And it throws out so many of the “interpretation” or “literary genre” or epistemological arguments almost right away. It does not matter if the eternal truths of God and ultimate reality are unable to be adequately communicated through human language or propositional truth. If God chose to reveal them and translate them in those ways, than the inability of us to communicate these things on our own is irrelevant. Hence, divine inspiration. Nothing is impossible with God. Why was Scripture inspired? So we could understand God and be saved. Francis Schaffer said, “If God doesn’t exist, we’re doomed. If God exists, but doesn’t speak, we’re equally doomed. But if God exists, and speaks, than salvation is in that speech.”

THE GRACE OF CLARITY

We know we need the Bible to make us wise unto salvation, but the question becomes how much do we need it, or do we need all of it, or can some of it be unreliable or with error in a way that does not jeopardize all of it, or even, do we define “error” correctly. I’m personally nowhere near being intellectually or spiritually convinced it is with error, especially on gospel-centered matters. My experience is that patient study of Scripture makes the “contradictions” less of an intellectual stumbling block. The challenge is, are we willing to consider Scripture to be authoritative enough to defend itself? We let science defend itself, so why not Scripture?

Inerrancy helps me understand, appreciate, and benefit from the clarity of Scripture. Theologians call it perspicuity. The Bible fits together and is self-authenticating. When you read it faithfully and comprehensively, the lack of error is almost obvious. The trajectory of the gospel (the narrative of redemption) and the Person and Work of Jesus holds throughout. I have learned this specifically through increased memorization and meditation of the text, and Scripture cross reference, which I consider a much more valuable use of my time than intellectual study outside the Bible (like in Ancient Near-Eastern literature), considering the shortness of life and the brokenness of our world. This is not to say that other study is a waste, or unfruitful – not at all. Nor does this imply that an intellectual approach to Scripture itself is unnecessary or unhelpful. Just, as a Christian, I can’t fathom considering intellectual study outside Scripture even close to on par with the study of, and meditation on, Scripture. This does not change at all if other study is your profession, just as it does not require my main devotion, as a Christian, to be the study of business principles just because that’s my vocation.

To deny inerrancy would include the “fallacy” of begging the question: at what point did we gain the authority to even make the accusation that there are errors, considering its clarity and cohesiveness, and the fact that we are not God? What the heck do we know? I have this picture in my mind of God looking at our discoveries like the equivalent of us watching a baby discover he has a belly button. Not impressive. When we discover things that validate Scripture, we glorify God, but don’t necessarily give ourselves new information required for life that was not already in the Bible. This is another way of saying that Scripture is sufficient for us; not exhaustive, but sufficient. When we discover something that does not validate Scripture, and causes us to re-think it, to God I see this as the equivalent of us re-thinking the purpose of our belly button. The arrogance! Not to mention the ignorance.

C.S. Lewis, whose own views on the inerrancy of Scripture were, to his own admission, partial at best, once said, “Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that.”

The more we are dependent on “intellectual tenability” with stories and doctrines in Scripture, or our own intuition that couldn't possibly grasp Eternal reality cohesively on its own, the less we are going to appreciate the clarity and interconnectedness, which it has and is amazing, and the more we are going to drift into nonsense. This does not mean we can’t benefit from what our own mind or imagination brings to our experience in the text. It also does not mean we can't intellectually question (or answer!) certain difficult to understand texts – just as I believe the “interconnectedness” of evolutionary science does not mean we can’t question certain tenets of evolution (i.e. the creation of a new species through natural selection alone). The key point is that Christianity, just like any other worldview, is a faith claim, yet amazingly, one that does not require us to leave our intellects at the door. The supposed contradictions in Scripture have intellectual explanations. Oh, how my heart breaks for those who weren’t taught to patiently and faithfully look for these things! But Scripture, and salvation, does not require us to have everything perfectly figured out on an intellectual level for it to be true, even while what we need to know is clear. Science, likewise, does not require this, but at the end of the day, when you nail it down to the most unexplainable level, which is your faith claim? Can’t be both. It is not a good sign, I don’t think, when as Christians we continue to try to intellectually explain the unexplainable (i.e. miracles, the virgin birth, etc.) – it shows where our faith is (in human understanding). It shows we are dependent on human explanation.

AN ERRANT BIBLE WON’T PREACH

Inerrancy is important because the Bible is important, because we don’t have hope outside it. To be blunt, an errant Bible won’t preach. Sorry. Intellectual explanations for genre comparisons and scientific findings that expose Biblical contradictions and all that don’t stir the affections, as Edwards would say. Subjective imagination is not going to top objective spoken truth revealing the desire of our hearts (Jesus). Those that say that it is our duty as the church to embrace scientific findings, even if they cause us to rethink traditionally held and theologically crucial doctrines of Scripture - because young, scientific-minded skeptics are walking away from the faith - completely miss the point in my opinion. Those that deny the Savior out of intellectual and moral pride, and use alleged contradictions between science and the Bible as an excuse for their rebellion, do not need our compromise of the infallibility of the Bible. They need our defense of it, and our love to them that will, through Scripture and the Holy Spirit, reveal to them the glory of Jesus, and help them embrace and celebrate science with a Biblical worldview that also embraces and celebrates the non-scientific truth in Scripture.

Science can and should be embraced by Christians, but it isn't going to stir the affections the same way. I think this is because science reveals God, but only Scripture reveals Jesus. So even Christians who happen to be scientists should not confuse the fact that their faith should preach more from their life than their vocation or hobby. Scientists have no more reason to question the inerrancy of Scripture based on findings in their field than do business professionals who are confronted with situations where profit seems to render moral commands in Scripture antiquated.

An inerrant Bible just makes more sense because of its profound truth and compelling narrative. The story of Jonah in the belly of a fish could have only been a metaphorical or poetic story to show God’s compassion for his people and his desire to use us in the spread of the gospel to those people, but if it didn’t actually happen the power of the story falls a little short. It’s not as good. It’s actually pretty silly. Surely God could have inspired a better story than that. Unless it’s true! Like when you watch a movie that is based on a true story there is something additionally powerful that comes through in the message that would have been less lasting had it been only metaphor or myth. I would rather my confidence be in the authority and clarity and actual truth of Scripture, which is inspired by God, than in intellectual consensus of man’s wisdom or creativity interpreting myth, which, if inspired at any level, is not so in the same way. The latter will perish, and just doesn’t captivate me towards the Savior.

The more I read about the “incarnational analogy” about Scripture from BioLogos – that it is both divinely inspired and humanly written, just as Jesus was both fully God and fully man in his incarnation, and so is inherently fallible – the less I understand the comparison, and the more I wonder why they are so quick to remind us of the human element of Scripture, as if that has been ignored or under emphasized in traditional understandings of inerrancy. In no way does this analogy help me understand why inerrancy cannot coexist with human imperfection, just as no verse or passage or underlying idea in Scripture gives me any reason not to fully embrace that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are completely compatible. Jesus’ humanness did not make him any less God (or even a sinner). How can we dare set one against the other? Jesus was human yet did not sin. The Bible was penned by humans yet is inerrant.

Additionally, the departure from an inerrant view of Scripture inevitably is going to lead to a less robust and grounded faith. Paul warns Timothy of those who have swerved away into vain discussion, made shipwreck of their faith, departed from the faith, wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. What keeps us from this if our view of Scripture is that it is with error? That question is not rhetorical. I really want to know.

WHAT IF?

With all that said, what if the Bible is not inerrant? What if there are some errors that don’t affect the essentials of saving faith? What’s the big deal?

Perhaps nothing. I’m ok with this possibility – IF - the ultimate authority of Scripture can still be intelligible and defended. Some say it can, but it shouldn’t have to be considered authoritative over God’s creation or human experience. I don't think that's going to work. The authority of Scripture, even if errant, will never hold if we don’t elevate it over the authority of God’s revelation in creation and experience. And God’s revelation in creation is actually the authority of academic consensus, because it’s all based on what humans have figured out and think about what God has revealed. Some of it accurate, some of it error. You might say this is the same with the Bible, but now we are comparing the clarity of Scripture with the clarity of science, and considering them equal to me is an abomination. Please consider this comparison carefully. God has not spoken revelation in creation (except in Scripture), whereas in the Bible, “Thus says the Lord.” Science does not contain the truth that leads to life; it cannot die for your sins.

Human experience is even more precarious. There is no way you can get anything objective from experience, and therefore, you can never know for sure if what has been revealed to you about God is true. Might be. But there is no way to know without the testimony of Scripture.

I would challenge one to meditate on Scripture and afterwards try to articulate the whole counsel of God as found in the entirety of Scripture, and with a straight face continue to say that the Bible isn’t an ultimate authority. If it’s not, I would be as bold as to echo Paul as he referenced the truth of the Resurrection – we are most to be pitied. If the clear revelation in Scripture of Jesus Christ crucified and risen, leading to eternal saving faith, is only equal in authority to the revelation of scientific discovery, or human experience, which mainly offers only intellectual understanding, or in some cases, maybe temporal care (as in medicine), than it seems to me, like Esau, we are settling for a bowl of porridge when we could have a lasting feast. We are elevating the authority of our collaborate minds to the same level as the authority of God’s actual words, and even holding the authority of God’s words captive to our own thoughts about what they say. We are more confident that what we figure out about the world, and even about Scripture, is a more definite and trusted authority than (or at least as definite and trusted as) what God says about it Himself. Oh, God forgive us!

MY PRAYER

Christensen in C.S Lewis on Scripture, says, “When eternal realities are transposed into our finite realm, something is lost in translation. A divine concession is made. There is a deficiency of substance when Eternal Truth takes on finite form. The particulars we see and affirm as true are only shadows of the truly Real.”

And elsewhere, “The literary interpretation of Scripture, like myth, is somewhat subjective. Its value depends on the one who receives God’s Word from its pages. Like all great literature, the Bible has several levels of meaning and can meet the individual where he is. To understand Scripture, we should look beyond the language to what is represented, thereby gaining intuitive insight into the nature of reality.”

Oh, that is not my understanding or experience! After reading Christensen, I am starting to realize that maybe there are a lot of people – Christians – who are not seeing, comprehending, or experiencing the eternal God of the Universe through literal and propositional truth found in the narrative of Scripture. Not because they can’t, as Lewis and Christensen would argue, but because they just aren’t. May it never be!

This is my prayer: “Lord, I don’t want a bridge to eternal realities, dependent on my imagination or intuition, or human academic consensus, and I don’t think I need one. I want the real thing. By your power and grace you have not made a divine concession in revealing yourself to us. A mythical manifestation of you that is dependent on an imagination I don’t think I could muster, is not the extent of our experience of your revelation. A real living word – an authentic experience and understanding of objective truth and reality, revealing a real human Person who is God – is revealed to us in finite form by the grace of God. Words! Human language! You desire to know me, and for me to know you, and I know that the incarnation of the Word of God in Scripture through the Holy Spirit reveals the eternal God to me, not exhaustively, but truly and sufficiently. And I receive greater joy and you receive greater glory than if the Bible were not verbally inspired, inerrant, and completely trustworthy and authoritative. Oh, how sad and cruel if subjective imaginative intuitive perception, or fallen human academic efforts, were necessary to experience your glory. Thank you Jesus!”

J.I. Packer said, "Any degree of skepticism about the portrait of Christ, the promises of God, the principles of godliness, and the power of the Holy Spirit, as biblically presented, has the effect of enslaving us to our own alternative ideas about these things, and thus we miss something of the freedom, joy, and vitality that the real Christ bestows. God is very patient and merciful, and I do not suggest that those who fall short here thereby forfeit all knowledge of Christ, though I recognize that when one sits loose to Scripture this may indeed happen. But I do maintain most emphatically that one cannot doubt the Bible without far-reaching loss, both in fullness of truth and of fullness of life. If therefore we have at heart spiritual renewal for society, for churches and for our own lives, we shall make much of the entire trustworthiness–that is, the inerrancy–of Holy Scripture as the inspired and liberating Word of God. (Truth and Power, 55)"

As for me, I will trust and hold Him to His Word.

“If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and the good doctrine you have followed. Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather, train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it hold promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” – 1 Timothy 4:6-10

Adam the First Person

I couldn’t resist it any longer. My mind was pregnant with a blog post, and birth has occurred. Here is what generated the pregnancy:

1. A recent Lifeway survey indicated that Protestant Pastors aren’t buying into evolution:

New Research on the Views of Protestant Pastors on Creation and Evolution

Praise God! Right?

2. Well, not according to everyone. Some think this is a very bad trend for the church. I decided to engage some of the folks who were concerned. Our interaction can be seen in the comments on this blog post:

Pastors Unconvinced…Now What?

3. A man named Peter Enns is very vocal (books and articles) about his concerns and very aggressive in his efforts at “re-interpreting” Genesis and other key Scriptures to account for what he sees as unmistakable evidence for evolution. This is not a new effort. Although, of late, it seems to be very popular. The flurry of activity that arises when one conservative voices his defense of an historical Adam is very telling. Just ask Kevin DeYoung. I personally find it interesting that those with a liberal interpretation of the Old Testament (liberal, as in, different from apostolic and church tradition), who accuse a conservative interpretation for its fundamentalism and unnecessary "dying on the hill" of their chosen doctrines, seem to be themselves dying on the hill of a non-historic Adam. I mean they are fiery about it. The word "brainwashed" is even thrown out about those who don't agree with them. Whoa, right? Just as a word of advice: anyone who says it is "crazy" to believe in a literal Adam, or the authority of Scripture over science, etc., etc. - is themselves absolutely crazy. It is one thing to say these things are wrong; to say they are crazy is out of touch with reality.

Anyway, Enns wrote a book called “The Evolution of Adam”, and the review of said book is generating much conversation that I have continued to participate in. He, actually, before this, wrote a book called “Inspiration and Incarnation” that sets the stage for the re-interpretation of Scripture that, as a Biblical scholar, not a scientist, he sees as the only way forward, based not only on scientific evidence, but on evidence of other ancient near-eastern literature.

For the record, I have not read either book. Sorry if that takes away the credibility of my comments. I hope it doesn't. It is what it is. One only has so much time. In general, raising an issue that challenges Christian orthodoxy and then requiring someone to read that full challenge in order to make a comment is not kosher. That's like saying I have a new revelation about how God meant for us to understand eating pork as necessary for salvation, and you have to read my whole argument before you can publicly disagree. And by the way, it is a million pages. Get to it. The Bible is all that's sufficient for the Christian, so if something is said about the Bible, I do not consider it an obligation to read the extent of what has been said, as if it is required knowledge to interpret Scripture accurately. Of course, there is value in understanding the full intention of the content that has been said before responding to the person responsible for it, to prevent misunderstanding, and that is what I have attempted to do. If nothing else, if my credibility has been threatened, consider only that I am responding to Peter Enns article in Huffington Post, as well as his blog summaries of his recent book.

One of his basic premises is that just as Jesus in his incarnation was fully divine and fully man, we have to remember that the "incarnation" of Scripture, as it were, is through God's inspiration and man's words. This is true, of course. But neither incarnation was 50/50. The mystery is that they both are 100/100 - 100% God and 100% man. And when you compare God and man, God is more authoritative. Let's just be serious. He is God. We are not. So we should not all of a sudden over-prioritize the humanity of Scripture and under-prioritize the divine inspiration of it, especially if it confuses God's absolute truth that he has revealed to us. It will always be 100% inspired, even as its 100% written by humans. Enns would say his incarnational analogy for Scripture does not under-prioritize God's inspiration. Maybe not. You can be the judge if you want to read his book. I am currently reading a response to it and other challenges to inerrancy in G.K. Beale's "The Errosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism". You can see further blog conversations that I participated in here (there are lots of comments!):

Testing Scripture on Creation and Fall
Adam in Genesis and Paul
Once More, With Feeling

More are being written all the time, and needless to say, I can’t keep up, so I am turning to the forum of my own blog (finally!). The main premises I am responding to with this blog post are:

1. Evolutionary science is settled (old earth, death before man, Adam as metaphor only, man as result of evolutionary processes, etc.).

2. Evangelical Christians need to get on board with evolutionary science (and ancient near-Eastern literary “evidence” for a different, mythical interpretation of much of the Old Testament) because many are “abandoning the faith” based on our unwillingness to concede what is presumably conclusive scientific (and literary) evidence.

3. To do this, Evangelical Christians need to re-think Genesis and other passages that, presumably, new research on ancient literature genres indicate were never intended to communicate literal scientific and historical truth, but only "myth" (loosely defined).

DON’T FOLD UP YOUR TENT

As a fellow commenter on the blog I have been participating on said, “Simply repeating over and over again, ‘the science is settled’ doesn’t make the objections to the naturalistic consensus go away. Those who find the naturalistic explanations unconvincing are not folding up their tent because Pete Enns gets press at HuffPo, or because a few scholars suggest we should all bow to the pronouncements of the ‘recognized’ experts in a particular field, nor should they. The debate will continue…”

A rebuttal to this comment claimed that there are indeed certain scientific conclusions that are “settled”. I do not believe that the most important scientific conclusions surrounding evolution are settled. If you are a Christian, and have never looked into these issues, this is important for you to know. There are certainly some scientific conclusions that are settled, but mostly they don't have anything to do with evolution, and are not specifically referenced in the Bible anyway. An example is the scientific conclusion that the earth is round. The earth is not flat, but correctly interpreted, nothing in Scripture says it is, and no orthodox theologian would even debate this. Another example would be the ancient thought that the sun revolved around the earth. We know now it is the other way around. Those who would use the flat earth or the earth's orbit as examples of why it is beneficial to sometimes reconsider traditional interpretations of Scripture in light of scientific evidence are buying time and insulting your intelligence. Don’t fall for it! Those "corrections" of ancient thought do not contradict anything explicit in Scripture.

The scientific consensus on the age of the earth based on radioactive dating methods seems to be that the earth is much older than 6000-10,000 years, as a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 would seem to indicate at first glance. But I would not call this settled scientifically or theologically. Scientifically, the complexity of some of these dating methods is so technical that no one without several degrees could even hope to understand it all. The science might never translate to intelligible conclusions for the average person, which makes it hard to take seriously in my opinion.

Theologically, there definitely are other explanations of Genesis 1 to allow an old earth to be perfectly compatible with Scripture (day-age theory, creation with the appearance of age, flood geology, etc.). But you can believe the earth is old based on Scripture, not science, and be just fine. The two pastors who have had the most impact on my theology allow for this (John Piper and Tim Keller). That is a better road than believing the earth is old only based on science, considering the implications of that belief. By that I mean if you consider the earth is old based on science, you likely believe this because of evolutionary processes that also contribute to the evolution of man. This is an implication that has not been settled. If you interpret Genesis 1 as not being 7 literal 24 hour days, that is a rational interpretation, and you can easily celebrate scientific studies of the dating of fossils and what not within that Biblical lens. However, if you look to science first to determine the age of the earth, you are likely also going to look to science first to determine things that can not be accepted within a Biblical lens; and shouldn't be - there is nothing settled about the fact that Adam was not real or evolved from another species (don't let anyone tell you there is). So the key is to look to the special revelation of Scripture first, and then the general revelation of science within that lens. God's Word vs. human discovery. Should be an easy choice of where to start.

Enns says that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is not about “human origins”. He goes on to say, “Israel's story was written to say something about their place in the world and the God they worshiped. To think that the Israelites, alone among all other ancient peoples, were interested in (or capable of) giving some definitive, quasi-scientific, account of human origins is an absurd logic. And to read the story of Adam and Eve as if it were set up to show such a thing is simply wrongheaded.”

Well, I hold that "absurd logic". I am "wrongheaded", it would seem. I, am many others.

It is not a stretch to me that the Israelites would be unique in certain things compared to other ancient peoples. Why, that was their entire purpose. Nor do I consider it a stretch, or the least bit absurd, to believe that the God who created (and sustains!) the universe (everything that exists!) was able to inspire “quasi-scientific”, historical events about Adam and Eve to the normally-unscientific Israelites, namely Moses. Nor do I think it strange that what the world considers absurd might actually be completely true. Enns continues,

“Reading the biblical story against its ancient backdrop is hardly a news flash, and most evangelical biblical scholars easily concede the point. But for some reason this piece of information has not filtered down to where it is needed most: into the mainstream evangelical consciousness. Once it does, evangelicals will see for themselves that dragging the Adam and Eve story into the evolution discussion is as misguided as using the stories of Israel's monarchy to rank the Republican presidential nominees.”

I will tell you the reason that what Enns is saying has not filtered down: it is either already there, because its obvious (flat earth), or its bologna. Reading the Biblical story in an ancient backdrop, as he acknowledges that Biblical scholars do, does not assume that Adam and Eve cannot be real. He is making confusing arguments and ridiculous metaphors to try to explain a point he will never be able to conclusively make. The likes of Enns have more than “mainstream evangelical consciousness” to convince, although even that is not likely to ever happen. There are more than just naïve, ignorant Evangelicals holding the hill of a literal Adam. In many cases he is only talking to the scientists, who happen to be Christians, who already agree with him. Those Christians, who happen to be scientists (there is a difference!), as well as the rest of us, who are not scientists, are not convinced by his approach or his logic. I would advise more respect and understanding of the pulse in the Church to Enns if this conversation is ever going to go anywhere. More helpful is Tim Keller’s pastoral approach to those who are struggling with how to reconcile faith and science. A key point in Keller’s treatment of this issue is that Adam and Eve need to remain real if our integration of science and faith is ever going to remain “Christian” faith, and not something else. His article is here:

Creation, Evolution, and the Christian Layperson

Additionally, the “discovery” that there was death before man is NOT settled, and theologically it is one of the things that is causing a "re-thinking" of Genesis and other passages. There are many explanations to the existence and age of fossils we have found, none of them conclusively proving anything about the timing compared to Adam. It needs to be repeated that this re-thinking is still a work in progress, at best. Anyone who has a problem taking these steps of faith, you would remain in good company with Evangelical Christians if you didn't. There are folks who take science seriously as a means to glorify God, within the framework of creation that He has established for it, as revealed to us in His Word, but do not elevate it beyond what it was meant to reveal.

I say “steps of faith” referring to certain individual scientific theories that many consider off limits to debate because evolution is said to be more about the “interconnectedness of many discoveries and scientific disciplines” - so you can’t just cherry pick individual ones to discount – namely, that natural selection alone can create a new species on a molecular biological level. But if this isn’t observable, scientifically (which it isn’t), forget the interconnectedness, the “discovery” that man evolved from anything is far from settled. And if this isn’t settled, the account of a historical Adam in Genesis still holds up very well, and there is absolutely no reason to “re-think” it. None. Consider this helpful description I received from a friend in the field of molecular biology:

"So you have a patient that needs antibiotic treatment for a strep throat. You give him antibiotics which he takes. Since humans have more bacteria in the gut than cells in the body, there is a possibility that just one or two bacteria of the many trillions will have a positive mutation that confers resistance to the drug. The one DNA mutation changed the amino acid coded for, and the protein shape is changed ever so slightly, so that it still does its function, but the drug cannot bind like it did before. Since the bacterium is invisible to the drug, but all the other bacteria aren’t, the resistant bacterium takes over because of the available resources. Next thing you know, you have an even worse infection that you must use another antibiotic to kill.

"That is natural selection. Why did I explain all that? I did it to show that something like that must happen millions and millions of times over to create the changes necessary to make a new series of traits, let alone a whole new species. That bacteria has so much stacked against it to just have one of those beneficial mutations. Think about needing millions of them. Then think about needing a selection mechanism for each trait, and not only that, but that the beneficially mutated organism will experience selection in its life time. You likely have methicillin resistant bacteria in your gut now, but it doesn’t matter because they will never get selected for (unless you take methicillin). On top of that, you would need gene duplications, translocations, reversions, massive genetic rearrangement, etc. that were evidently necessary to create the complicated genomes we have now. If all that wasn’t enough, this all seems unlikely even in bacteria which has a generation time of 20 minutes. Consider how many years and generations it would take when you have to select from an organism with an 80 year generation time with all the set backs I listed above! The probability that this can occur is astronomically low. And from a scientific and molecular biology standpoint, it is simply not plausible.

"My point is: Natural selection exists. It can shape some environments. It can change animals slightly within their kind by a few genes and to a certain extent. But there is no specific evidence, and it his extremely unlikely that new species can be created through natural selection alone. Really, it’s impossible."

FAITH SHIPWRECK

To address the second premise, let’s be clear about what it means to “abandon the faith”. I say this very conscious of the fact that many have had those close to them take this road. Seriously, I pause in humble desperation to God that this would not be the case, and that any who have left would come back!

But to walk away from the faith doesn’t ultimately mean that your intellectual understandings of science and Scripture don’t match up anymore. That could contribute, but these people who are “abandoning the faith” because the Christian church isn’t embracing evolution, is anyone talking to them about Jesus? About the cross, the resurrection, the ascension, or the new earth that we were created for, that no scientific discovery can even begin to foretell? Are they surrounded by a community of the saints, God’s bride? What about godliness and righteousness in light of their personal sin problem? Ravi Zacharias said it well when he said that no one ultimately rejects the faith because of an intellectual stumbling block; they reject the faith because of a moral reluctance to submit to the Lordship of Christ. Are we proclaiming and demonstrating the Gospel to them so that the Holy Spirit can work through our lives in their hearts?

Can we at least confirm a moral reluctance (pride, etc.) isn’t what’s going on in these examples, before we re-interpret Scripture so much that we aren’t sure what we have left? Because if this is going on at any level with those who are walking away from the faith, the authority of Scripture is going to be very important as they return (which they can!). It is the Word of God. The Word of God! It pierces to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Acknowledging science is not more important than submitting to the authority of Scripture, ESPECIALLY for those who would consider abandoning the faith. Those who don’t abandon the faith, but embrace evolution at the cost of discounting the authority of Scripture (which I know is not everyone who embraces evolution, but clearly many fall into this category), are they not in worse shape of abandoning the faith later for other non-science, non-intellectual related reasons?

I want to be the rare Evangelical Christian who rejects evolution, but does so in a way that is respectful and attentive to the science, the people, and the discoveries. I really hope I am coming through that way. I desire very much to avoid being guilty of, as Enns says, “all sorts of strained, idiosyncratic or obscurantist tactics: massaging or distorting the data, manipulating the legal system, scaring their constituencies and strong-arming those of their own camp who raise questions.” This does not have to be the approach of a competent Evangelical Christian who rejects evolution.

I don’t hate science. I’m not mad at anybody. I am not naïve, and I know many holding to the premises above aren’t either. My goal is to be very clear, yet very sensitive, about what is at stake here so that we all can make other conversations about the faith easier to get to, aside from whatever scientific aptitude or perspectives a person may have. The Word of God is the link from this life to the life to come. It reveals the mediator who gets us there, in right standing with the Father. Science can’t do this. Ancient Near-Eastern Literature can't do this. It can’t die for our sins and can’t expose us to the wonders of eternal life and everyday grace in Jesus Christ. Let’s still celebrate science! Let’s just be very careful as we “re-think” the most important of revelations: the Word of God. It has to be the higher authority. Has to be.

SO WHAT ABOUT ADAM?

Why is an historical Adam and Eve necessary? What can’t Genesis 1-3 be parable-style storytelling, which many go to great detail to interpret it as, and which seems to match with other similar ancient literature? What essential doctrines of the faith would we really lose? Well, I will again lead you to Tim Keller’s approach to this issue, as he separates Genesis 1 from Genesis 2-3 in a way that is very helpful to sort through the complexity that this discussion can create.

"We may read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2 but not in Genesis 1, or (much, much more unlikely) we may read them as literal in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2. But in any case, you can’t read them both as straightforward accounts of historical events. Indeed, if they are both to be read literalistically, why would the author have combined the accounts, since they are (on that reading) incompatible? The best answer is that we are not supposed to understand them that way. In Exodus 14-15 (the Red Sea crossing) and Judges 4-5 (Israel’s defeat of Syria under Sisera) there is an historical account joined to a more poetical ‘song’ that proclaims the meaning of the event. Something like that may be what the author of Genesis has in mind here.

"What, then, were the authors of Genesis 2-3 and of Romans 5, who both speak of Adam, intending to convey? Genesis 2-3 does not show any of signs of ‘exalted prose narrative’ or poetry. It reads as the account of real events; it looks like history. This doesn’t mean that Genesis (or any text of the Bible) is history in the modern, positivistic sense. Ancient writers who were telling about historical events felt free to dischronologize and compress time frames – to omit enormous amounts of information that modern historians would consider essential to give ‘the complete picture.’ However, ancient writers of history still believed that the events they were describing actually happened.

"The evidence is that Near Eastern ‘myths’ did not evolve over time into historical accounts, but rather historical events tended to evolve over time into more mythological stories. Kitchen’s argument is that, if you read Genesis 2-11 in light of how ancient Near Eastern literature worked, you would conclude, if anything, that Genesis 2-11 were ‘high’ accounts, with much compression and figurative language, of events that actually happened. In summary, it looks like a responsible way of reading the text is to interpret Genesis 2-3 as the account of an historical event that really happened.

"If you hold to the view that Adam and Eve were not literal, and you realize the author of Genesis was probably trying to teach us that Adam and Eve were real people who sinned, and that Paul certainly was, then you have to face the implications for how you read Scripture. You may say, "Well, the Biblical authors were ‘men of their time’ and were wrong about something they were trying to teach readers.” The obvious question is, “how will we know which parts of the Bible to trust and which not?”

"I am not arguing something so crude as “if you don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then you don’t believe in the authority of the Bible!” I contended above that we cannot take every text in the Bible literally. But the key for interpretation is the Bible itself. I don’t believe Genesis 1 can be taken literally because I don’t think the author expected us to. But Paul is different. He most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a Biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the Biblical authority. As I said above, that doesn’t mean you can’t have a strong, vital faith yourself, but I believe such a move can be bad for the church as a whole, and it certainly can lead to confusion on the part of laypeople.

"If you don’t believe in the fall of humanity as a single historical event, what is your alternative? You may posit that some human beings began to slowly turn away from God, all exercising their free wills. But then how did sin spread? Was it only by bad example? That has never been the classic teaching of the Christian doctrine of original sin. We do not learn sin from others; we inherit a sin nature. Alan Jacobs’ great book on Original Sin: A Cultural History says that anyone who holds to the classic Augustinian view of original sin must believe that we are ‘hard-wired’ for sin; we didn’t just learn sin from bad examples. The doctrine also teaches that it was not originally in our nature to sin, but that we have fallen from primal innocence. Another problem arises if you deny the historicity of the fall. If some human beings began to turn away from God, why couldn’t some human beings resist so that some groupings would be less sinful than others? Alan Jacobs in his book on original sin insists that the equal sinfulness of the entire human race is foundational to the traditional view."

Further, Mark Driscoll explains the importance of a historical Adam and Even this way:

“When we look at Scripture itself, it’s clear there are numerous biblical reasons why Christians should affirm that Adam was both the first person and the first person—and there is no textual evidence to support a denial of this truth. Rather, to deny this historical teaching of the church undermines the clear teaching of the Bible and fails to make sense of its storyline, as without a historical Adam and Eve, there is no fall and no need for redemption and no need for Jesus. The very basis of Christianity is effectively undermined.

“So, what are we to do in the face of seemingly contradictory truth between science and Scripture? We have two choices: exchange the truths of Scripture for the truths of science and wash our hands clean (Paul is clear in Romans 1:18 and 1:22–23 that many people choose just this option), or we take the truths of science and place them within the context of the truths of Scripture as the highest authority.

“Just as there are many ways to interpret the chronological and methodological ways in which God created and still be in the realm of Christian orthodoxy by affirming the intended truth of those Scriptures—that God created—there are also many ways to internalize the truths of the historicity of Adam and Eve as taught in Scriptures. What one cannot do, however, is deny the existence of Adam and Eve and remain faithful to the Scriptures and their account.

“As C. John Collins, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary writes, ‘The purpose of the stories [in Genesis] is to lay the foundation for a worldview, without being taken in a “literalistic” fashion. We should nevertheless see the story as having what we might call a “historic core”’, namely that Adam and Eve were real persons through whom came the fall and sin and our need for salvation, which can only come through Jesus, his death and resurrection. Any other story or worldview is in contradiction to Scripture and thus to be rejected.”

DIFFERENT DOCTRINE

The very effort of “rethinking” Biblical Christianity, or Biblical interpretation, should raise serious red flags for discerning Christians. It is the main reason why Peter Enns, for example, raises a red flag to me. The subtitle of his blog is "rethinking Biblical Christianity". That is bold. It doesn’t matter how far science, or liberal Biblical scholarship, may take us, it can never take us to a reinvention of orthodox faith. There can't be a new orthodox. So whatever convincing evidence you may sometime run across, remember that it is either compatible with Scripture and the faith as is, and you can celebrate it to the glory of God, or it is on its way to heresy, if not already there. We have come to the point where we have to say that the teachings of fellow Evangelical Christians are on the way to heresy. That should not be surprising, but should seriously humble us. I know it has humbled me.

1 Timothy 1:3-4 --- As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.

What is a “different doctrine”? My Pastor Mark Vroegop explains, “The word means it is a departure or a deviation from the apostolic instruction that the church had been taught. Now it is important to note here that not everything 'new' is bad, but part of the appeal of this false teaching was its improvement on what Paul had taught. Most false teachers do not present their teaching as radically different but merely as an improvement. However, Paul saw this as preaching a different gospel (Gal 1:6) or a different Jesus (2 Cor 11:4).”

Paul considered Adam real. Maybe, some would say, he did this based on the information and cultural assumptions of his day, namely, that Genesis and the creation account were mythological interpretations of the true doctrines of God. So he thought they were history, but they were really myth, and when you go back and look at them, this is obvious to us in a way that was not obvious (or relevant) to Paul (or Luke). So Paul was mistaken at some level that is ultimately insignificant to the centrals truths communicated, and we are able to improve upon his teaching clarifying the mythology in it, because of modern evidence. This is not a good idea. Don’t embrace a different doctrine. In fact, if you are a Christian, you should charge certain persons not to teach anything of the sort. A non-literal Adam is a different doctrine. That's the line, like it or not.

The temptation to embrace this different doctrine (because of cultural and scientific pressures) is going to be very difficult to resist, and the lack of doing so is going to be very, very important. As Keller says, “I don’t know that there has ever been a culture in which the job of the pastor has been more challenging.” The same would apply to the faithful Christian sitting in the pew and interacting on the street, so to speak, with those who are confused or hostile to the message of the Christian faith. My prayer is that the indwelling Spirit of God, the imparted grace of God, the interceding Son of God, and the inspired Word of God would make us ready for the task of guarding the good deposit of Scripture that has been entrusted to us and makes us wise for salvation - not just our own!