![]() ![]() No, because becoming a follower of Jesus does not require the prior belief that the Bible is completely true. (I don’t think Andy is doing this, as it happens, but I haven’t heard enough of his sermons to know for sure.) Yes, in that increasing passion for Jesus will lead to increasing passion for the Bible, and vice versa. ![]() Yes, in that framing things this way and then using them as an argument against quoting the Bible in preaching, or affirming it as true, would be bizarre. Yes, in that as I’ve already said (and written a book about), trust in Jesus does lead us to a very high view of biblical inspiration, authority and truthfulness. Arguing that Jesus is the foundation of our faith rather than the Bible, therefore, is pushing a silly false dichotomy-as if you were to say that you trusted your wife, but didn’t trust her word. Since the Jesus you believe in is witnessed to in the Bible, you can have both, or neither, but you can’t have one and not the other. You believe in Jesus because of the Bible, and you believe in the Bible because of Jesus. The key response which many have made to that summary statement is this: you can’t separate them. The reaction to Andy’s message has made me realise that it is. Two years ago, in my book Unbreakable (which is all about the inspiration and authority of Scripture), I argued, “I don’t trust in Jesus because I trust the Bible I trust the Bible because I trust in Jesus.” That, in a nutshell, is how I would summarise what Andy is being criticised for saying, although it’s frequently a comment I make in teaching on the doctrine of Scripture or hermeneutics, and when I wrote it, it didn’t seem controversial.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |