The Bible testifies to Jesus Christ. If its critics want to debate some other aspect of the Scriptures, let them debate themselves. Jesus is Lord!

I’d say that the first “Bible crisis” in the U.S. came not from Darwin (though that became a huge crisis for many–and apparently still is for Mohler) nor from Europeans practicing early forms of “higher criticism” (as it was then called), but the slavery crisis. Because the pro-slavery folks seemed to have the better biblical case (with the hermeneutical approaches then available), and the anti-slavery party “only” had the Spirit of the Scriptures, many were shaken in their view of Scripture.
Whatever we mean by our terminology for biblical inspiration, “inerrancy,” and authority, our approach cannot sanction slavery.

I like Wright’s approach (except that I would emphasize shared Bible study in church groups more than private study–and even the private study is to be tested in the church which is a hermeneutical community reading Word and world together), but I guess I don’t feel the need for finding a way to “preserve the centrality and authority of Scripture” because I expect it to preserve and defend itself. Have groups strayed from Scripture? Sure. Have they neglected it? Sure.

But the Power of the Holy Spirit speaking in and through these very human words always challenges and renews new generations.

To me the proof is in the pudding. I have believed so since college days. I remember a conversation back then in which I was trying to show a friend that although Carl Henry had words defending the authority of Scripture (8 volumes!) that someone like Joachim Jeremias, who’d never use a term like “inerrancy” was a much better exegete and showed greater respect for Scripture by being more careful with the actual text. My friend replied, “Well, who do you think has the higher view of Scripture, then?” Without thinking, I replied, “Mother Theresa or Desmond Tutu.” I think I was right–they PERFORMED the Scriptures.

Now it seems that a lot of the discussion on the inerrancy of the Bible rest on its being “the Words of God”. If a statement is the word of God then it’s true. I think if a statement is true then it is the word of God. I say this because we have no way of knowing if a person presents us with a statement that God inspired them. We have to test if the words are true first, then we know they are God’s. We can’t first test that they are God’s then know they are true. If we accept the words as true and of God without testing them then it must be because an authority as good as truth has spoken for them. Who is that?

Our Bible collection was selected by a number of people and committees. Did these people have special powers to speak on behalf of God? How did that happen? Is only on selecting works for the faithful community that they spoke with the authority of God or on their other practices as well?

Ignorance is no great sin. Knowledge must be sought and is not all laying out in plain site. I’m sure Jesus believed that the world was around 4,000 years old and tress proceeded animals in the ocean, and birds came before animals on the land. Why would he believe differently? it would, I suppose, take an intelligence far out side the human to make all the discoveries of 2000 years of science in a couple of decades. And there is no reason to believe God would let him know any more than he let the author of Genesis know. But when the truth is known, to hold on to ignorance transforms it into a lie. Bart Ehrman lost his faith because his faith was based on lies. That is why I feel it is so important for the Christian community to reject the foolishness of those like the Peace Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. If this is allowed to define Christianity then no Christlike person could ever consent to being Christian.