Part One

Man’s Lust As An Agent of Change

Scripture itself chronicles an entire world history long Satanic attack on scripture.  It is one of the few major components of apostasy, even as seen in 2 Peter 1.  Man wants to do what he wants to do, what the Bible calls “lust.”  He follows his own lust.  The authority of scripture gets in the way of man’s own desires, so he follows the ideology of Satan by attacking scripture.  Without the Bible, authority returns to himself and he goes his own way without compunction.

People who want to do what they want to do are the audience for evangelical outreach.  These people look askance at true Christianity, wanting something closer to what pleases them not God.  Mere biblical stuff does not attract or allure them.

Evangelical churches and organizations have choices about growth and then budgets.  Evangelicals like the same comforts as their potential audience, who want to please themselves.  They “get” that audience, because they operate in a similar trajectory.  Christianity becomes another way of getting things, except with a lot of the negatives removed.  It’s not true, but a desirable narrative, what people would want their Christianity to be.  Much in scripture gets in the way of the false narrative.

The Bible becomes the casualty in the clash of desires, please one’s self or pleasing God.  These desires compete and something’s got to go.  Evangelicals will not keep their attendees without something going.  One can see the biblical and historical doctrine of scripture change.

Naturalism in Academia As An Agent of Change

Naturalism also rose and took hold in academic institutions in the United States in the 19th century.  This included evangelical ones and then churches out of these.  Supernaturalism became unacceptable.  The doctrine of the Bible reads from scripture as supernatural.  God is in charge of His Words and He wants, even requires, people to follow suit.  If professing academics try to take that supernatural point of view, they won’t fit in academia.  They won’t be the smart ones, might not find their supernaturalism acceptable for publication.

So how did and does biblical, historical, or classical bibliology change?  How did even evangelicals move the goalposts?  It’s not always through all evangelicals taking the new positions, but it’s also accommodation of the new positions.

This series will not cover every diversion from scriptural bibliology, but it will represent the point of the title, moving the goalposts for bibliology by evangelicalism.

Moving the Goalposts on Inspiration

Scripture teaches that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), so that is true.  The historical, biblical position on inspiration is “verbal, plenary inspiration.”  God inspired every Word and all the Words.  The authority of scripture comes from that, even as seen in the rest of 2 Timothy 3:16:  “and is profitable for doctrine,” etc.  The authority of scripture proceeds from inspiration.

I provide three examples of moving the goalposts on inspiration, not necessarily in any order.  Evangelicals see large numbers of deconversions or departures from the faith.  These young people or students see apparent inconsistencies, incongruities, contradictions, or what look like errors.  I remind you of the mixture of these discoveries with their lust.  Why should these young people continue in this path without a perfect book?

The Christological Approach Pushed by Dan Wallace and Others

A text or book verbally, plenarily inspired by God must be perfect, every word and all of them.  Since people “don’t see that,” they push the eject button.  The presupposition for verbal, plenary scripture comes from scripture.  Some might call that circular reasoning.  Critics would say that no one should operate on circular reasoning.  Daniel Wallace, longtime professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, offers instead what he calls an incarnational or Christological approach.

Describing Christology over Bibliology

This incarnational approach defers to errors in scripture, but says that the Word isn’t a textbook.  In fact, the Word is Christ.  Christ is perfect, so His Word is perfect.  Sure you find contradictions and errors there in the Book.  Wallace can’t vouch for a literal inerrancy.  There is a mystical aspect to the faith, that starts with Jesus and not the Book.

The high view of scripture according to Wallace comes because of the perfection of Christ.  He is the Word.  Then those who start with Jesus go to scripture with the same view He had.  As you read this, I can understand your seeing or thinking there are some gaps in Wallace’s position.

You might think, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17).  It seems faith proceeds from the Word of God, not an experience external to the Word of God with Christ.  What is this mystical experience?  And if Christ is Who He is, I would expect Who He says He is, then isn’t His Word actually perfect?  That is what He says.  If He says it, and then we look into scripture and find it isn’t true, what does that say for the testimony of Christ?

John Wenham

Wallace seems somewhat honest about his expectations of the Bible.  They are diminished by scholarship.  He went back to the drawing board on inspiration, authority, and inerrancy, unlike when Bart Ehrman came to that same juncture.  He found a book written by John Wenham in 1972, called, The Bible and Christ.  There Wallace found this innovative position, and it’s the one he pushes on his students.  Christ is a Perfect Christ no matter if the actual Words of scripture are perfect, and He would contend that we know that by a supernatural, extra-scriptural experience with Christ.

John Frame found the same shortcomings of Wenham’s book in a review he wrote in 2012.  This is not an endorsement of Frame, but I would agree with Frame’s assessment of the approach that Wallace embraces on the Christology over Bibliology doctrine.  Wallace moves the goalposts on bibliology.  Perhaps many evangelicals would reject Wallace’s position, but they wouldn’t call it neo-orthodox.  They would accommodate him.  Someone included the following in a definition of neo-orthodoxy, which I believe is true about it:

Neo-orthodoxy teaches that the Scripture is a communicator or medium revealing God rather than being revelation by itself. The Word of God is Jesus Himself rather than Scripture serving as God’s Word. The emphasis is on an encounter with God rather than a focus on the inspired words of Scripture.

This kind of thinking, now spoken by evangelical Daniel Wallace, liberals embraced in the writings of Emil Brunner and Karl Barth.  This is the end for evangelicalism, when its leaders sway the adherents into this direction and these types of positions.

More to Come