Biblical inerrancy or Christ?

MadPriest once again comes up with some very interesting ideas, as he writes his "Thought of the century" (7.8.09). Extract:
If the Bible is in any way inerrant, written by God or dictated by God, then what was the point of Jesus?
There would have been no reason for the Word to become flesh. [...]
If the Bible is the word of God then we better hope God isn't lying. And we wouldn't know whether he is or not. However, if the Bible is written by independent witnesses to the acts of God then we have more reason to believe that those acts of God actually happened.
In other words, the Bible is more trustworthy and a zillion times more exciting if God didn't have anything to do with its writing and compilation.
In a comment, Counterlight points out that
There is one completely inerrant book written by God himself that is so holy, some regard it as "uncreated;" with God from the very beginning of time.
That book is the Quran, according to Muslim belief. The Muslims would agree with you. They certainly don't need any Incarnate Word.
Happily, despite the best efforts of fundamentalists to turn it into such, the Bible is not the Quran. It remains what it says it is, a testament.
A few years back, I preached a sermon (in Swedish) where I made a similar point. A translation of the pertinent passage:
In our present-day Lutheran church, there are many things that need reforming, e.g. regarding bureaucracy and structures. What the edge of reform must point to is however in my opinion the misinterpretation of the expression ”the word of God” that has come to the fore and damages individuals to the core, when they are hit by loose bible verses. That is hardly what the author of the Letter to the Hebrews had in mind when he writes (4:12f): Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account. In this passage, as in the New Testament in general, ”the word of God” is not a collection of texts (which usually is called ”the Scriptures” or something similar). It is to the ”word of God” that we must render an account. ”The word of God” is not the Bible, but Jesus Christ, God's living and active word that became flesh. The Bible contains words from God when it proclaims Christ, but it also contains other things, for example the Jewish ritual law that Jesus made obsolete. They have a place in the Bible because they paint a background to why Christ had to come to the Earth, but they aren't the word of God even in the sense that the phrase usually is understood.
The Bible is in itself a very good book and worth close study. But in our church it competes with Christ forthe title ”the word of God”. We have to reform this competitive situation. It is the message of Christ's love that is important, not what we happen to be able to combine from different odd verses.

No comments: