This broadcaster has 938 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
May 28, 2021 12:01 am
Jesus taught that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. Why do some theologians today disagree with Him? Today, R.C. Sproul demonstrates why we must believe Christ, not the critics.
Get the 'Hath God Said?' DVD series for a Gift of Any Amount: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/1735/hath-god-said
Don't forget to make RenewingYourMind.org your home for daily in-depth Bible study and Christian resources.
If Jesus came in this room tonight was of Jesus weep and expose all kinds of critical theories about the origins of development of trustworthiness in Scripture. We were in endless disputes about infallibility, inerrancy, and inspirational. A certified digitalis plays is this Bible the word of God as it inerrancy or is it not the good and Jesus gave us a clear answer to the debate would be over, but no one would question the inerrancy of Scripture, we actually do have Jesus thoughts but liberal scholars and theologians still question the reliability of the Bible would like to join us for the Friday edition of Renewing Your Mind as we wrap up Dr. RC school study series, hath God said in our last session on our study of the authority of Scripture. I made reference to the historic convention that took place in 1978 were a group of international scholars came together for a summit meeting to give definition to the classical expression of the inerrancy of the Bible.
A few years prior to that event Lincoln air ministries sponsored a much smaller conference on the same subject in Western Pennsylvania where six or seven scholars from around the world were gathered to address the same issue but what fascinated me about that event was that those scholars came from every part of the nation and from Europe to that event to discuss the question of the inerrancy of Scripture without any prior conversation.
Each one of them came to that forum came to press the point that in the final analysis, the question of the authority of the Bible is a question of Christology. You may wonder how in the world that could be the case but the issue was.
Not so much in the final analysis, do we put our confidence in the Bible. But what kind of confidence do we have of the truthfulness and the authority of Christ himself. No store alike hotel and some of you, and other lectures. Mabel regarded as a telling incident that occurred to me a few years ago in Philadelphia. Pam to be speaking on the subject of the authority of the Bible in a large church in downtown Philadelphia and at the end of that event.
I was delighted and shocked to see a very close college friend of mine rushing up the center aisle to greet me.
After the service and I hadn't seen this fellow in over 20 years. In fact, when we were in college.
We lived in the same rooming house and every single night we met together for an hour and 1/2 an hour for study the Scripture in the second half an hour was for prayer and so we were very close and he was a year ahead of me in school and graduated before I did and after college I went on the seminary, but after college he went to the mission field as a missionary for three-year term and after he completed that three-year term.
He went to a different seminarian.
I went to Europe and I lost track of him and didn't see him all these years well or so need to see my friend the ice drop Teresa, let's go out to dinner with Skip, you married him to children and so on. We went out to the restaurant and when we sat down.
He was a little bit nervous and he said RC should be before we we talk about a thesis of that to tell you less of what he said. I heard your address. The night in which you again affirmed your confidence in the infallibility of Scripture, and so on Ace and I just want to tell you that I don't believe that anymore is that after being exposed to other religions in foreign culture and then coming back and going to Union theological seminary in New York and being immersed in skeptical, critical studies of the Scripture. He said I no longer hold to the old-fashioned position of the inerrancy of Scripture, and I sent to them will is there anything that you still do believe, and he smiled and he said oh yes he said I still believe that Jesus is my Savior and my Lord and I was certainly of course delighted to hear that but I said to my civil he say that he is your Lord, how does he exercise lordship over your life is we may not swear the Lord is somebody who wishes commandments and how does Christ command or rule your life is not to the Scripture. Where do you hear the marching orders of your Lord and he thought for many civil I hear the word of God. I hear what you're saying is I hear that in the teaching of the church simply of the churches which church the Methodist Church the Presbyterian Church. The Episcopal Church is Presbyterian Church as it was Presbyterian Church. Once I lost one boss and one to a civil noise in the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church lesson which general summative rupture in church. The woman voted this way on a particular issue last year and are completely emergence of this year, which was the mind of God as well. I guess I have a problem, and I said yes I said you of the Lord, who has no vehicle through which he can express his Lordship in the next issue is what is the Lord's view of Scripture. If Jesus came in this room tonight. I was in Jesus weep and expose all kinds of critical theories about the origins of development of trustworthiness of Scripture with an endless disputes about infallibility, inerrancy, and inspirational.
That sort of thing would you tell us plays is this Bible the word of God as it inerrancy or is it not how Jesus walked in this room tonight. Like Joan said to friends.
The Bible is a good historical book, but it certainly not inerrant, that's just an exaggerated view of Orthodox people. I was certainly banded inerrancy in a heartbeat if Jesus came and Aaron told me that it wasn't so. Suppose you weren't sure or suppose you took the view that it wasn't an inerrant document in its original manuscripts.
No one's pleading for the inerrancy of translations of course. I hope we understand that, but rather in the original versions and you are sure you were doubting if Jesus came in the room said look, that book is inspired by God the Holy Spirit is the word of my father.
My father never errors. It is altogether infallible altogether inerrant to be convinced with the matter be settled for you if you just have to listen to sprawl or some other theologian or a conciliar statement by an institution.
Christ himself locked in here and said that book the Bible is inerrant, would that settle the dispute for it would for me.
I can imagine anybody. Then standing up for sale shortly. Jesus, though I receive you as the Lord of my life and the Lord of the church. I must demurrer on this point and I have to correct you, you, you bought into an outmoded unsophisticated view of Scripture and imaginary money with the audacity of trying to correct Christ on an issue like that of 11 strange as it may same. That is exactly what is happened and is continuing to happen in the 20 century church and I want to take some time to explain this and it gets a little bit complicated, but the first instance we want to see can we discern if possible.
What Jesus view of Scripture was now in order to discover what Jesus thought of the Bible, we have to go to the Bible, of course, now the Bible says that Jesus says the Bible is the word of God. What's the problem there would appear that here we are faced with the most vicious dilemma.
The dilemma of the vicious circle. The problem of question begging and begging in a most vociferous way. If the only way we know about Jesus from the Bible and the only way we know what Jesus said about the Bible is from reading the Bible, how can it possibly be relevant to us what Jesus in the Bible says about the Bible. Do you feel the way to that problem and people would say to argue in this way would be to argue in a circle you never get out of that circle, you never got out of the Starbucks and suggested we think very carefully here with the way we actually proceed. Here is not circular but linear and progressive person we want to start with is, does the Bible give us any reason to conclude that it is of any historical value. I don't think we get an argument from any serious scholar on that point they may argue as to the degree of the historical validity of Scripture, but I don't know of any critical scholars would say it is absolutely value less in terms of its rhetorical contact get to the next stage little more cumbersome. I was able to we have any evidence that the Bible is basically reliable and what it teaches not infallible, not inerrant, not inspired produces other human documents from the past go, how does the Bible stack up but we jump ahead of myself. Your friends and to say to you that there is no literary source from the ancient world that is been submitted to the most rigorous scientific scrutiny and analysis as the New Testament and the Old Testament have been exposed. In fact, there is no work from the ancient world that is within 1/10000 of careful research, as the New Testament has been.
We have many writings from the ancient world that has survived already mentioned some of the ancient historian Thucydides, Tacitus, Xenophon, Herodotus, and so on. So Tony is the rest and to validate scientifically the historical reports of ancient writers is not an easy task. For example, if Luke says to us that an angel appeared to Zacharias in the temple in Jerusalem. How is archaeological science. For example going to verify or falsify that claim unless you dug up petrified angel wings would be pretty tough to show one where the other will.
That's not how historical verification proceeds in science, but rather through the science we reconstruct the geography. The customs and so on of ancient people and ancient cities and we test that knowledge against what is reported by the other historians through what is verified indubitably through the spate of the shovel of archaeology. For example, in a simple way if Luke says that so-and-so was the ass in the dark of such and such a place that such a such a time in history and then next week we dig up documents from that town. Then indicate that the very person that Luke name was, in fact, called the aftermarket that time in history we have at least verified conclusively that Luke was right on that minor historical detail to see him say it however we turn over the spate and the spate says that he was in Annette markings a sack start and that his name was something else and that then looks in trouble as a historian to say there is no historian from the ancient world that comes anywhere close to the scientific validation of historical accuracy is for example the author of the Gospel of Luke is Joan secular and religious people have concluded that Luke is the finest historian of the ancient world that I'm laboring that point for reason.
I think it be utterly irresponsible to say in light of the evidence of history and of science that has history.
The New Testament is basically unreliable. I took this case to Pittsburgh seminary when a lecture to the faculty and the student body. There several years ago, much of the first point I want to establish is the basic reliability of the New Testament document now again, if I were talking to a pagan audience. I would have to belabor this point further but I was speaking at this point to a church audience to seminary president did not accept this premise that the Bible is basically reliable just generally reliable and you have no rational justification for seminary and us.
To say that those professing Christian people that the primary historical source upon which all of Christianity's establish basically unreliable. Let's close all the issue wasn't basic reliability issue was inerrancy infallibility.
As of now, suppose on the basis of this just generally reliable historical document we read it and we can become persuaded legitimately persuaded that there was a man by the name of Jesus who did extraordinary things at extraordinary wisdom and insight and was at least recognizable as a prophet doesn't take infallibility of the Bible or inerrancy of the Bible to come to the conclusion that Jesus was a prophecy removing the steps. If we became in fact persuaded that Jesus were at least a prophet. Then we would become interested in knowing what this prophet taught about Scripture because to be a prophet one has to be little better than generally reliable if an Old Testament prophet, which is generally reliable in his prophecies, but sometimes unreliable to be stoned to death because it evolves from it. If they had a prophecy that was not true.
Now can we learn what Jesus is prophet taught about the Scriptures will again the save time New Testament critics look back at the different portions of the Bible and they sort of take it apart with scissors and placements and what we think this was written later than the second century inserted back and that the actions onto, and I will question the historical originality of certain portions of the Bible. One of the oddities ladies and gentlemen that even in the realm of skepticism and criticism.
One segment of the New Testament that has the highest level of historical validation happens to be those sections that include Jesus teaching about the Bible so there is no serious debate at all among biblical scholars about what Jesus of Nazareth taught and believed about the Bible is very clear that Jesus of Nazareth accepted and embraced and taught the prevailing view of the Bible that was held among the Jews, namely that it was the word of God that it was inspired of God that was infallible. Jesus settled his theological disputes with his contemporaries by an appeal to a single word in Scripture. He said that man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. They made this comment regarding Scripture.
He said oh God thy word is truth that some people don't like the term verbal inspiration. They think it gives God to do much. The small points assemble maybe in general there's a spread letdown. The very words Jesus said about a single drop. Her tittle the law shall pass away until all is fulfilled. Jesus view inspiration we call drawn tittle inspiration down the communist of periods the crossing the teams and the dawning of the eyes and again among those who dispute the doctrine of inerrancy.
They do not dispute that. That's what Jesus taught it at the same time, these people have gone on to say that he was wrong. And before you become aghast at that. They have a very significant theological justification for correcting Jesus at this point is to remember that Jesus had a divine nature and Jesus had a human nature and being human Jesus knowledge in his humanity was limited in the New Testament the disciples come to Jesus and I asked him about the end times and when he would return and he said, and of the day and the hour knows no man, not even the son in that statement Jesus if you can bear this ladies and gentlemen, told his disciples that there was something he did not know. I know some theologians have bent over backwards and uncle Kaiser contortions and gymnastics to try to explain that away say Jesus really did know but that the answer was too deep or too holy to be able to communicate to other people. But the fact the matters. He said police theologians acknowledge what every Protestant theologian should acknowledge the touching his human nature.
Jesus was not omniscient and know everything omniscience the knowledge of everything. Beloved is an attribute of God is an attribute of the divine nature is like God is a spirit he doesn't have a body.
Jesus human nature has a body, the divine nature doesn't have a body divine nature resides within the human body, and so on. But understand that the Jesus was hungry that that was not a manifestation of the divine nature because God doesn't get angry. That was a manifestation of the human nature. So Jesus and I don't know that.
Certainly not a manifestation of the knowledge of the divine nature, divine nature knows everything.
Human nature didn't. So these theologians say will since he didn't know everything Jesus could certainly have been mistaken. How was he supposed to know that the prevailing Jewish view of the Scripture was wrong.
How could Jesus be faulted when he said and Moses wrote of me when Val hasn't hadn't even lived yet and Jesus wasn't aware of the fact that Moses didn't write the first five books of the Bible that they were written by J EDB can't fault Jesus for that. Yes we can. The critical point knives and gentlemen, is that Jesus did not have to be omniscient in his human nature to save us from our sins, but he most certainly had to be sinless, the qualifies, our Savior have for somebody, anybody to pretend or proclaim, or declare that they have more knowledge than they in fact do have is a sin in the Bible's standards of the teacher's responsibility it saw Marissa don't let many become teachers for with teaching comes the greater judgment to lead somebody astray is seen as you have been better for that person never been born a millstone around her neck delete some of the ones astray. I suppose I commend you and I said tonight I want to listen to my lecture because when RC Sproul speaks truth happens and then you found me making a mistake how much credibility what I have with you to realize that Jesus said I teach nothing on my own authority, but only that which God has given me the authorization to say and then he goes and says I am the truth.
If the teacher claimed to teach nothing but what was given to him by the father and to be truths incarnate and then taught erroneous information, then his claims would be falsified and that would be a sin and Jesus would not qualify to save himself, let alone us in the issue of the authority of Christ is because we are convinced and persuaded that Christ is the Lord of the church. The teacher par excellence, the supreme authority in hand over the church that we so vociferously fight for and defend the claims of Scripture to be the word of God because what is at stake here is not the reputation of Isaiah or Jeremiah but nothing less than the authority the Lordship and the Savior Christ we know what the critics have said about the Bible, but today here on Renewing Your Mind. We went to the definitive source, Jesus wrapping up Dr. RC Sproul series, hath God said the question posed in that title is vital to our understanding of Scripture.
RC would often say that it's not enough to believe in God, we must believe God, and we do that. Only when we accept his revealed word in the Bible as truth would like for you to have the series. There are six messages contained onto DVDs and with your gift of any amount will be glad to send them your way.
You can reach us by phone at 800-435-4343. You can also give your gift online and Renewing Your Mind.org in the series.
RC discuss the authority and authorship of the Bible how and why we arrived at 66 books in the various philosophical movement standing against inerrancy. We recommend this study for your small group work Sunday school class again. It's titled, hath God said, contact us today with your gift of any amount at 800-435-4343 or at our website, Renewing Your Mind.org close. We celebrate 50 years of ministry here at Liggett here would like to invite you to a conference that day returns us to our geographical routes. It will be held in Pittsburgh near the birthplace of this ministry there in Western Pennsylvania and the theme is a continuing Reformation will examine the essential truths of Scripture. Champion five centuries ago by Luther, Calvin and other faithful reformers.
I hope you make plans to join us September 24 and 25th in Pittsburgh to find out more and register go to Liggett here.org/events next week. Liggett are teaching fellow, Dr. Robert Godfrey joins us to share his latest series on the book of Revelation. It's called the blessed hope, we hope you'll join us next week for Renewing Your Mind