Why do people attack the Scriptures? There are usually only two reasons: one is doctrinal; the other is moral. Those in the first category do not like something that the Bible teaches. As Joe Barnhart admitted in his debate with brother Warren, he rebelled against the thought of his father being lost and suffering in hell; thus, for him, the doctrine of hell had to go. If the Bible teaches such a doctrine (and it does), then the Bible itself must be attacked. Those who are partial to various fleshly sins also find fault with the Bible. Rather than repent of the sin, they assault the Scriptures.
John Shelby Spong, Episcopalian bishop from Newark, New Jersey, is just about the chief prosecutor against the Scriptures these days. Consider his assessment of inspiration. “Inerrancy is not a viable option for the serious Christian, even when the claim is focused narrowly on the New Testament” (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism 79). Apparently, the “scholarly” Spong is unaware of the classic work, Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible, by Haley. He seems equally ignorant of men like McGarvey and others who answered the “higher critics” in the last century.
Of course, many who want to reject the Scriptures cling to Spong’s writings like blood-sucking leeches. Lester E. Robbins is one of those. He also wrote a defense of Spong in the Dallas Morning News of June 7th after William Murchison took issue with Spong and his new book. Robbins postulates that the New Testament writers disagreed with one another. He is not very specific (in terms of citing the Scriptures), but a refutation of his ideas is in order.
His first unsubstantiated assertion is: “Paul did not agree with the disciples of Jesus, as he indicated in his epistle to the Galatians” (3J). We can only guess, in the absence of any details, that he might be referring to Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14. The controversy was not over the teachings of Christ; it was in the application of the Truth. Some still had a hard time fellowshipping Gentiles because of what they had been taught as Jews. They knew, however, the truth that God had accepted the Gentiles (Acts 11)– even if they fell short on occasion. Paul and Peter did not teach different doctrines at all. Anyone who has studied the New Testament knows how many parallel passages these two men wrote. Furthermore, Peter said that what Paul wrote was Scripture and calls him “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3:15-16). This “disagreement” is a figment of Robbins’ imagination.
The Gospel of Matthew rejects Paul’s rejection of the Mosaic Law, and the letter of James refutes Paul’s view that salvation has nothing to do with good works.
Paul did teach that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15). But Matthew did not teach otherwise. Moses himself prophesied the coming of a new lawgiver (and thus, a new law) as early as Deuteronomy 18:15-19). Jeremiah also foretold of a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). Where did Matthew argue that the Law of Moses will NOT be done away? The only verse that could possibly be so misconstrued would be Matthew 5:17-19, which emphasizes obeying every point in the law “till all is fulfilled.” When it was all fulfilled (Jesus said, “It is finished”), then it was done away. There is perfect harmony in these Scriptures.
The alleged “contradiction” between Paul and James is frequently cited despite the fact that this issue has been explained time and again. (The problem with liberals is that they never pay attention; they just keep teaching the same errors over and over. Their students repeat the same fictions their professors learned.)
When Paul writes that we are not saved by works, he is referring to works of merit. No one is able to say, “I have earned salvation.” He is usually arguing against the Judaizing teachers, who were a continual problem in the New Testament. James is not affirming that we are saved by works of merit. He is using the word works in the sense of “obedience.” Some, like those today, had misunderstood what Paul wrote about grace and faith. Paul dealt with some of those misconceptions himself in Romans 6. The point that James makes is that faith does not negate or nullify man’s responsibility to act, and he challenges anyone to define faith apart from obedience (works). The only people who see a contradiction between the writings of James and Paul are those who willingly ignore the facts and the background against which both are writing.
Next Robbins asserts:
Besides rejecting Paul’s teaching, Matthew exhibited little faith in the narrative of Mark. Matthew’s numerous disagreements with and corrections of Mark’s Gospel are dealt with extensively in Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, by Robert H. Gundry.
Well, that settles it. Robbins read a book! He was told this hogwash by another ÒscholarÓ–end of discussion! Without having read Gundry’s book, but having seen many like it, it is safe to say that the entire thing is a matter of conjecture. It is a theory concocted by someone concerning what he thinks Matthew knew and what he thinks Mark knew (and, if he is anything like Spong, what Q knew). Q stands for an unknown document written by an unknown person from which Matthew and Mark allegedly got their information.
Matthew and Mark do not disagree. Each New Testament writer recorded things from a certain perspective. One will include more details than another. Sometimes a subject may be treated thematically instead of chronologically. Variations are not contradictions; to claim such just shows the shallowness of the “scholar.”
To suggest that Matthew had read Mark’s narrative is nothing but conjecture; to suggest he didn’t trust it is fantasy. The reader would do well to ask himself, “How do these ‘scholars’ get all of this information?” They have no objective evidence. They look at the text and decide what happened–as a child might look at some strange footprints and conclude that a space alien had been there. “How do you know?” Well, he left his footprints, the child retorts.
This is the same kind of circular reasoning Spong and others use. They assert that the book of Daniel, for example, could not have been written during Daniel’s lifetime. Why not? Because the prophecies are too accurate. The book must have been written after all those things had already occurred (what does this tell you about Spong’s view of inspiration?). The next assertion is that Daniel did not write Daniel. Oh, why not? Because it was written so many years after his lifetime.
Another trick, which Spong uses, is that he constantly denigrates the Biblical text–until he wants a piece of information to back him up. Then the text must be good because it supports him (No, I’m not making this up). When Spong wants Jesus to be older than thirty, he cites John 8:57, in which some critics said He was not yet fifty years old. Wait a minute! Is this the same text that Spong has so often assure his readers is inaccurate? How about the very next verse? Would Spong agree that Jesus is the I AM? Or did the text suddenly become corrupted? See how many games a person can play when he makes up his own rules?
Finally Robbins closes by insisting that Matthew and James did not preach “justification by faith” as Paul did. In the first place, their purposes in writing were different. Matthew is recording the life of Jesus; James has frequently been called the proverbs of the New Testament; he provides practical applications of Christian wisdom. Paul was teaching doctrine to combat error. Disagreement should not be assumed just because they are emphasizing different aspects of Christianity.
How about considering what they specifically agree upon–such as the resurrection of Christ (Matt. 28; 1 Cor. 15)? If James does not mention the resurrection; is he in disagreement with Matthew and Paul? How about rescuing those who have departed from the faith? James closes his book on that note (James 5:19-20), and Paul commands it, too (Gal. 6:1). Is Matthew out of the loop on this one?
These conjectures are silly. There have always been, and always will be, critics of the Bible. Some are modern-day Jehoiakims who enjoy taking their penknives out to carve up the Word of God, which they hope will destroy its contents as effectively as throwing it in the fire did. However, the king only destroyed the scroll; the contents remained. Likewise, liberal “scholars” succeed in impressing very few people–usually only other like-minded “scholars” and a few other assorted persons who dislike their sins being condemned.
Robbins listens to men like Spong, who in their great “wisdom” conclude such things as “Paul was not a universal scholar. He was not even a good biblical scholar” (Rescuing the Bible 104). Perhaps at some future time, say, the day of judgment, we will find out how God rates Spong as a scholar!
R. C. Foster, in his monumental work, Studies in the Life of Christ, comments on this sort of “scholarship,” although he uses the phrase professional historian, to refer to those men who are constantly denying the inspiration of the Scriptures.
Now who are the “professional historians”? What are their qualifications? What bases of judgment do they use? Fiske [another liberal “scholar” who wrote the book, The Real Jesus, gws] talks as if the great commission reads: “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the professional historians. Whatsoever they may decide to be in harmony with the theory of evolution and the latest skeptical fantasies shall be declared true; and whatsoever they shall deny to be in accord with their theories shall be declared false. No one else is to listen or judge for himself; all are to await the dictum of those who have elected themselves to do their thinking for their fellow men (754-55).
Upon what ground ought we to listen to Fiske, Gundry, or Spong? Just because they (and numerous others) tell us they are smart, should we believe them–especially when they have no respect for the Word of God?
One thing is certain, if the Bible is as they claim it is, it is a worthless document. It cannot claim to be inspired and yet be full of historical errors and conflicting accounts of what happened. Jesus could not tell us that the truth was valuable enough to set us free from sin (if we learn it and obey it) if His words and deeds were to become so garbled as to be unintelligible.
If the Biblical writers were not inspired, but claimed to be, they are liars and frauds; nothing they wrote can have any credibility. If they did not claim Divine inspiration, and someone wrote that in at a later time, then two things (at least) are true. 1. The original writings were not inspired and are therefore relatively worthless, so far as truth is concerned. 2. Someone tampered with what had been written if the claim of inspiration was never there in the first place. And if they trifled with the text to add those words about inspiration, who knows what else may have been altered?
The choices are basically two. EITHER the Bible was inspired when it was written, as it claims to be, and therefore those who are analyzing it to death do not know whereof they speak, OR the things that were originally recorded were uninspired and faulty remembrances written some 30 to 40 years after the fact, and then possibly redone and reworked by uninspired men.
Everyone is entitled to make his own decision, but if the latter option is true, we do not know any spiritual truths for certain, and therefore we have no real, genuine hope. None of the works of Graf-Wellhausen through Spong contains enough evidence to dissuade any believer. The Word of God is precisely what it says it claims that it is–the Word of God.