******<\/p>\n A disturbingly common response from inerrantists to those who ask historical-critical questions about the Bible is that they are undermining inerrancy and are thus mouthpieces of Satan. Defenders of inerrancy are following Jesus\u2019s lead, while non-inerrantists, who are perceived as denying the Bible, are doing what the serpent did to Eve in the Garden, which is get her to doubt God\u2019s Word by asking, \u201cHas God really said?\u201d<\/p>\n In my last post<\/a>, I observed that Bob Yarbrough is representative of inerrantists when he suggests that Jesus had a word-that-proceeds-from-the-mouth-of-God view of scripture (see Matthew 4:4), which according to Yarbrough is approximate to modern day inerrancy.<\/p>\n In this post, I observe that while inerrantist writers of this sort pose themselves as the good guys (doing and believing what Jesus did) they also have no qualms about presenting views that \u201cchallenge\u201d God\u2019s Word as being in step with the devil\u2019s motives.<\/p>\n I give two examples. First, Russell Moore<\/a>, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, makes the claim in a 2013 Alumni chapel at Southern Seminary concerning the denial of inerrancy:<\/p>\n There\u2019s always a spiritual element behind it because I think the first recorded attack on the inerrancy of scripture we see is in Genesis chapter 3: \u201cHas God really said?\u201d <\/em>(41:25)<\/p>\n So, inerrancy is a spiritual issue and to question inerrancy is to follow Satan\u2019s lead.<\/p>\n Second, David Garner, associate professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theology Seminary, adds some heated polemic for good measure in his introduction to Did God Really Say?<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n When the serpent asks, \u201cDid God actually say?\u201d (Gen. 3:1b), the manner in which he tempts our first parents exposes his consistent modus operandi. God\u2019s Word serves as Satan\u2019s point of attack . . . With the force of spiritual authority itself, we turn the question, Did God Really Say?, right back on those who continue to misrepresent the gospel with serpentine-compatible methods. <\/em>(p. xxii)<\/p>\n I have devoted quite a bit of time researching and writing in an effort to help Bible-believing Christians come to see that large swaths of American inerrantist culture is taken in by a rhetoric of fear<\/a> As soon as students begin to think that they\u00a0may have good reason to become critical of inerrancy, it is suggested they are ceding to temptation and being seduced by \u201cserpentine-compatible methods,\u201d as Garner puts it.<\/p>\n In these examples, commitment to inerrancy is presented as a spiritual obligation: If a student wants to make sure they aren\u2019t following the devil\u2019s lead (and who would ever say that they want<\/em> to do that?) then they\u2019d better quit asking such critical questions about the Bible let alone entertaining critical answers to those critical questions. Indeed, so long as there remains some solution to a problem that can save<\/em> inerrancy, one had better accept it since trust in and obedience to God requires it.<\/p>\n This clear-cut, either\/or choice\u2013side with Jesus or Satan\u2013poses a troubling dilemma for inerrantist churchgoers and students who begin having genuine questions.<\/p>\n But I am encouraged to see that more evangelical believers are coming to understand that the dilemma posed by some inerrantists is a false<\/em> one\u2014and in doing so they are actually the ones following Jesus\u2019 lead.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n You have heard it said that \u201cAn eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,\u201d but I say to you do not resist an evildoer <\/em>(Matthew5:38-39)<\/p>\n Wait a minute! Is this not in essence what inerrantists claim that the devil<\/em> was trying to do in Gen 3 in the Garden? But here in Matt 5, it\u2019s Jesus who\u2019s doing it<\/em>. Didn\u2019t the devil question the meaning of what the Word of God requires from believers? Well, according to Matthew, this is exactly what Jesus did throughout his preaching<\/em>.<\/p>\n In fact, questioning what God really said appears to be Christ\u2019s \u201cmodus operandi.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>The main difference is that Jesus\u00a0claimed\u00a0that he was fulfilling scripture<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n So (Jesus continues) you heard that God said he wants people to love their neighbor and hate their enemy<\/em><\/strong>? I tell you that God wants people to love their enemies.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>(Matthew 5:43-44)\u00a0If this is not a challenge to God\u2019s word then I don\u2019t know what is, but Jesus explains that it misses the point to see it as a challenge. To understand what Jesus means to say and do by presenting scripture in the way he does, one must accept what Jesus says (and does) as its fulfillment<\/em>.<\/p>\n Therefore, if we ask, does Jesus challenge people to doubt the popular way of understanding scripture? Or perhaps more provocatively, are Jesus and the devil then not doing more or less the same thing in challenging scripture? We should answer, at least on one level, absolutely.<\/p>\n But on another level, there\u2019s also a world of difference because Jesus\u2019 challenge purports to fulfill scripture, to achieve its purpose, to bring out its full meaning, to re-direct scripture so that it can be put to the service of God\u2019s will.<\/p>\n How does Jesus set out to do this? By tying scripture\u00a0directly to his mission<\/strong><\/em>, by enlisting it in his revelatory message that he is God\u2019s Son and by consistently drawing upon it to support his ministry to the cross<\/strong>.<\/p>\n To support my proposal (and it\u2019s only that, a proposal), I appeal to Matthew 4:1-11 where Satan tests Jesus in the wilderness.<\/p>\n For my part, I think that the scholars who view Jesus\u2019 baptism and temptation as an \u201capocalyptic journey\u201d or a \u201cvisionary experience\u201d are definitely onto something. The heavens opening, the heavenly voice, and the Spirit (and other spirits) guiding Jesus to places throughout the world leave no question in my mind that Jesus underwent altered states of consciousness (and probably regularly did so and taught some of his disciples how to do it too).<\/p>\n![\"c](\"https:\/\/peteenns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/c-bovell-2014.jpg\")
<\/a>Today\u2019s blog is by Carlos Bovell, a frequent contributor here.\u00a0Bovell is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and The Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto. He is the author of\u00a0Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(2007),\u00a0By Good and Necessary Consequence: A Preliminary Genealogy of Biblical Foundationalism<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(2009), an edited\u00a0volume,\u00a0Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(2011), and\u00a0Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(2012).<\/p>\n