Biblical Errancy An Analysis of its philosophical roots. 2nd edition

205 Pages·2012·1.76 MB·English

by  Norman L. Geisler

Biblical Errancy
An Analysis of its Philosophical Roots
Revised, Second Edition
Edited by Norman L. Geisler
2013
BIBLICAL ERRANCY: An Analysis of its Philosophical Roots, Second Edition
Edited by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright © 1981, 2012 Norman L. Geisler
Published by Bastion Books | P.O. Box 1033 | Matthews, NC 28106 | USA | http://BastionBooks.com
No portion of this e-book may legally be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form and by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, digital or analog recordings, or by any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from Norman L. Geisler or
Bastion Books. However, the following rights are hereby granted only for the legal owner of this e-
book: (1) You may store a copy of this e-book file may be stored in safe and unshared location as a
backup in case the original is lost to electronics malfunction or theft. (2) You may place a copy of this
e-book file on two electronic devices that you own. (3) The purchaser of this e-book may print one
paper hard copy and replace that hard copy when it is discarded due to wear, lost, or stolen. (4)
Properly attributed quotations of 100 words or less with clear citations is considered “fair use.” (5)
Pastors and teachers may purchase one copy of the e-book and share it in digital form with their
students so long as this e-book is being used as a primary text book and no financial profits are made.
Redistribution of this e-book beyond these limits could result in legal action. Other requests regarding
the use of this material may be made by postal mail or by emailing [email protected].
The first edition of this book was published by Zondervan in 1981 and by Wipf and Stock in 2004.
Print versions of the first edition may still be available at Wipf and Stock.
The cover art depicting men ready to slam their hammers against an anvil was inspired by the
following H.L. Hastings quote: “Infidels of eighteen hundred years have been refuting and
overthrowing this book, and yet it stands today as solid rock. Its circulation increases, and it is more
loved and cherished and read today than ever before. Infidels, with all their assaults, make about as
much impression on this book as a man with a tack hammer would on the Pyramids of Egypt. When
the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and
warrior said to him, ‘Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.’ So the
hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and
the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long
ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die
and the book still lives. No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified.
What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has
been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such
thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet? The Bible is still loved by millions,
and studied by millions.”
Acknowledgments
And as always, the dedication of my wonderful wife Barbara has enriched my life and improved this
and all my books. I thank God for her faithfulness for over a half century.
I also wish to thank Christopher Haun and Jim Evans for their valuable aid in the editing of this
manuscript.
Contents
PREFACE .....................................................................................................................................................................5
1 Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D. ...................................................................................................................................7
INDUCTIVISM, MATERIALISM, & RATIONALISM: BACON, HOBBES, SPINOZA..............................7
2 Gary R. Habermas, Ph.D.................................................................................................................................. 21
SKEPTICISM: DAVID HUME .......................................................................................................................... 21
3 David Beck, Ph.D............................................................................................................................................. 48
AGNOSTICISM: IMMANUEL KANT ............................................................................................................. 48
4 Winfried Corduan, Ph. D. ................................................................................................................................ 77
TRANSCENDENTALISM: GEORG W. F. HEGEL........................................................................................ 77
5 E. Herbert Nygren, Ph.D.................................................................................................................................. 99
EXISTENTIALISM: SØREN KIERKEGAARD .............................................................................................. 99
6 Terry L. Miethe, Ph. D................................................................................................................................... 127
ATHEISM: FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE ........................................................................................................... 127
7 John S. Feinberg, Ph.D................................................................................................................................... 156
NONCOGNITIVISM: LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN...................................................................................... 156
8 Howard M. Ducharme, Jr., Ph.D................................................................................................................... 195
MYSTICISM: MARTIN HEIDEGGER........................................................................................................... 195
9 Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D. .............................................................................................................................. 218
PROCESS THEOLOGY: WHITEHEAD, OGDEN, AND OTHERS............................................................ 218
EPILOGUE.............................................................................................................................................................. 252
NOTES..................................................................................................................................................................... 263
Notes on the Preface........................................................................................................................................... 264
Notes on Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 264
Notes on Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 267
Notes on Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 271
Notes on Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................................. 275
Notes on Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................................................. 277
Notes on Chapter 6 ............................................................................................................................................. 282
Notes on Chapter 7 ............................................................................................................................................. 284
Notes on Chapter 8 ............................................................................................................................................. 291
Notes on Chapter 9 ............................................................................................................................................. 296
PREFACE
A number of contemporary evangelical writers have pointed to the epistemological roots of the
current denial of the inerrancy of Scripture, but few have attempted to identify and elaborate them.
This book is an effort in that direction. Each essayist is trained in both philosophy and theology and
writes out of an expertise in the specific philosophies discussed.
Perhaps the primary scriptural exhortation prompting this work is that of the apostle Paul: “See to it
that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy” (Col. 2:8). Indeed, in this
book, to quote the apostle again, “we demolish arguments and . . . take captive every thought to make
it obedient to Christ“ (2 Cor. 10:5). But we believe that to “beware of philosophy” we must first be
aware of it. We must be aware of its subtleties and of its liabilities in view of the Christian's
fundamental commitment to the inerrant Word of God.
It is often naïvely assumed that because contemporary theologians are evangelical in doctrine and
practice they are somehow immune from adverse philosophical influence. This fallacy is tantamount
to claiming that doctors and nurses never get sick. Indeed, often in the history of Christianity some of
the most philosophically and theologically unorthodox writers believed themselves to be defending
and preserving “true” Christianity. Spinoza, who was an unequivocal pantheist and uncompromising
anti-supernaturalist, doggedly denied that his view undermined confidence in Scripture. He wrote, “I
have said nothing unworthy of Scripture or God's Word . . . .”1 Another example of how one can be
blind to the subtle but erosive influences of philosophy on his own thinking is Stephen T. Davis, a
contemporary denier of inerrancy. He ironically points a finger at “liberals,” saying, “What leads
them to liberalism . . . is their acceptance of certain philosophical or scientific assumptions that are
inimical to evangelical theology. . . .”2 A more current example is that of Mike Licona (The
Resurrection of Jesus, 2010) who claims to believe in inerrancy but asserted in a debate at Southern
Evangelical Seminary in Spring, 2009, that Gospel writer John contradicts the other Gospels on the
day Christ was crucified.
The purpose of this book is to expose some of these philosophical assumptions we believe to be
inimical to evangelical theology. In this regard, an explicit disclaimer is necessary. We do not claim
that all contemporary errantists are directly and consciously influenced by any or all of these
philosophers. Many have been influenced only indirectly and unconsciously by only some of these
views. Philosophical assumptions are often “caught” rather than taught. They are picked up unawares
in the culture and through education. They are contracted almost like a common cold, simply by
breathing the contaminated “air” of our age. But like the undesirable virus, these unacceptable
assumptions are to be both guarded against and treated when caught.
The philosophical “air” is alive with everything from Bacon's inductivism to Heidegger's mysticism,
with Hume's skepticism, Kant's agnosticism, Hegel's transcendentalism, Kierkegaard's existentialism,
Nietzsche's atheistic relativism, and Wittgenstein's linguistic noncognitivism. Few errantists may
admit the influences of most of these men on their thinking, but only the naive and untrained can miss
the marks of these philosophers in their writings. We hope that, by exposing these alien
presuppositions, these essays will alert evangelicals to the philosophical roots of biblical errancy in
other areas as well.
Norman L. Geisler, September 2013
1 Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D.
INDUCTIVISM, MATERIALISM, & RATIONALISM: BACON,
HOBBES, SPINOZA
CHAPTER SUMMARY
THIS CHAPTER TRACES THE EARLY MODERN ROOTS of biblical errancy to the
philosophies of Bacon, Hobbes, and Spinoza. Once the inductive scientific method was assumed to
be the means of obtaining all truth, it was a natural step to conclude that Scripture dealt only with
religious truth. Such was the separation of science and Scripture set up in the wake of Bacon's
inductivism. The materialism of Hobbes led to some of the earliest naturalistic and negative higher
criticism of the Bible. But the full force of anti-supernaturalism and negative criticism was set in
motion by the rationalism of Spinoza. Thus within a little over one hundred years after the
Reformation the philosophical seeds of modern errancy were sown. When these seeds had produced
their fruit in the church a century or so later, it was because theologians had capitulated to alien
philosophical presuppositions. Hence, the rise of an errant view of Scripture did not result from a
discovery of factual evidence that made belief in an inerrant Scripture untenable. Rather, it resulted
from the unnecessary acceptance of philosophical premises that undermined the historic belief in an
infallible and inerrant Bible.
It is not uncommon to mark the modern departure from biblical authority and inerrancy from the early
nineteenth century. In 1804 Johann Eichhorn issued a critical introduction to the New Testament. F. C.
Baur in the 1830’s applied a dialectic to Peter and Paul that resulted in the synthesis of John in the
second century. Julius Wellhausen (1876) popularized the documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch.
Before this (ca. 1866) K. H. Graf laid down the basis of the JEPD theory. And even before these men,
other scholars had in effect denied the inerrancy of Scripture. H. B. Witter (1711) believed in two
accounts of creation, and Jean Astruc used divine names to identify some dozen different writers in
Genesis (1753).
However, it was Spinoza’s anti-supernatural rationalism that laid the groundwork of modern biblical
criticism in the late 1670’s. From his philosophical roots, the seeds of errancy spread to Richard
Simon in France. He is called by many the “Father of Biblical Criticism.” Like Spinoza, he denied the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and is said to have been the first to introduce the word critique
into the discussion of the Bible (1678).
We will begin our survey almost two generations before Simon with the Englishman Francis Bacon.
We will see that the roots of modern errancy are to be found in the philosophical soil of the
seventeenth century.1 From here the errancy position has spread gradually down through the centuries
to our own day.
FRANCIS BACON (A.D. 1561—1626): INDUCTIVISM
About one hundred years after the Reformation, Francis Bacon published his famous Novum
Organum (1620) in which he set the stage for modern biblical criticism and the denial of the full
authority and inerrancy of the Bible. Inerrancy is undermined in several ways in this work.
Bacon claimed that all truth is discovered inductively. After tearing down the “idols” of the old
deductive method of discovering truth, Bacon argued that “the best demonstration by far is
experience.”2 The inductive method, he said, is the true way to interpret nature. One can understand
how Bacon could consider inductive logic a valid method for scientific inquiry, but he went far
beyond reasonable bounds when he claimed universal applicability for this method. He wrote:
It may also be asked . . . whether I speak of natural philosophy only, or whether I mean that the other
sciences, logic, ethics, and politics, should be carried on by this method. Now I certainly mean what I
have said to be understood of them all; and as the common logic, which governs by the syllogism,
extends not only to natural but to all sciences, so does mine also, which proceeds by induction,
embrace everything.3
Science is the true model of the world. In view of the exaltation and extension of the inductive
method, it is not surprising to hear Bacon say, “I am building in the human understanding a true model
of the world, such as it is in fact, not such as a man's own reason would have it to be.” This new and
true model, Bacon dared to claim, would discover “the creator's own stamp upon creation.” He even
went so far as to identify it with “the Ideas of the divine.”4
Truth is known pragmatically. Bacon saw clearly that his method implied a pragmatic test for truth;
namely, if it works, it is true. “Truth and utility,” he wrote, “are here the very same things.”5 For “of
all signs there is none more certain or more noble than that taken from fruits. For fruits and works are
as it were sponsors and sureties for the truth of philosophies.”6 In short, all truth is tested by its
results. This is pragmatism some three centuries before William James (1842—1910) or John Dewey
(1859—1952).
Bacon separated science and the Bible. Some have mistakenly claimed that Thomas Aquinas (1225
—1274) was responsible for separating faith and reason. This view is unfounded. Aquinas did make
a formal distinction between the two realms but never an actual separation. For Aquinas, human
reason at its best is finite and fallible, and can never attain the content of the Christian faith.7 Reason
is only the servant of the theologian, a tool in the discovery and expression of one's faith.8 But what
Aquinas did not do, others like Bacon did: Bacon completely separated the realm of reason and
science from the realm of faith and religion. He wrote, “It is therefore most wise soberly to render
unto faith the things that are faith's,” for from the “absurd mixture of matters divine and human”
proceed heresies and “fantastical philosophy.” It is for this reason that “sacred theology must be
drawn from the word and oracles of God, not from the light of nature, or the dictates of reason.”
Bacon went so far as to say, “We are obliged to believe the word of God, though our reason be
shocked at it.” And therefore, “the more absurd and incredible any divine mystery is, the greater
honour we do to God in believing it; and so much the more noble the victory of faith.”9
Science is excluded from Genesis and Job. In view of Bacon's complete separation of faith and
science, one is not shocked to hear him debunk a hermeneutic that considers the biblical affirmations
in Genesis and Job to be factually true. He said, “Some have endeavored to build a system of natural
philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, the book of Job and other parts of Scripture; seeking thus
the dead amongst the living.”10 Now certainly it is one thing to read modern scientific theory into
ancient poetry,11 but it is another to exclude space-time affirmations from the book authored by the
Creator of the physical universe. Surely Bacon went too far here.
It is not difficult to see how Bacon set the stage for the view that the Bible is infallible only in
“spiritual matters” but does not speak to us inerrantly of historical and scientific matters. If we must
render to science what is science's (namely, all truth), then what is left for religion? For Bacon, and
even more clearly for Hobbes who followed him, the Bible serves a religious and evocative function
—it leads us to honor and obey God—but it does not make cognitive truth claims about God nor
affirmations about the physical universe.
THOMAS HOBBES (A.D. 1588—1679): MATERIALISM
Thomas Hobbes, like Bacon, appeared to be a professing Christian. But in view of the lack of
religious toleration in those days (and the natural fear one would have to speak openly against
religion) it may be better to understand Hobbes only as a tongue in cheek believer. In fact, he is
considered by many to be the father of modern materialism. There are numerous ways in which
Hobbes's views directly and indirectly undermine the traditional doctrine of scriptural authority.
Hobbes advocated materialistic sensationalism. In Hobbes's materialism, the forerunner of Hume's
skeptical empiricism, all ideas in one's mind are reducible to sensations.12“There is no conception in
a man's mind, which bath not at first, totally, or by parts, been begotten upon the organs of sense. The
rest are derived from that original.”13 Hobbes was very explicit when he spoke of this. He boldly
declared that the world (I mean not the earth only . . . , but the universe, that is, the whole mass of all
things that are) is corporeal, that is to say, body; and hath the dimensions of magnitude, namely, length,
breadth, and depth: also every part of body is likewise body, and . . . that which is not body is no part
of the universe: and because the universe is all, that which is no part of it is nothing, and consequently
nowhere.14
God-talk is evocative but not descriptive. Hobbes argued that “there is no idea or conception of
anything we call Infinite. . . . And therefore the name God is used, not to make us conceive him…but
that we may honour him.”15 In this Hobbes was a forerunner of the logical positivists and linguistic
analysts who deny the cognitivity of revelational language. As A. J. Ayer (1910—1989) later
claimed, all God-talk is literally nonsense.16 Of course if there is no meaningfully descriptive God-
talk, then none of the propositions in the Bible are meaningful descriptions of God. Needless to say, if
Hobbes were right, it would play havoc with any divinely inspired propositional revelation that
purports to inform us about God.
Miracles are brought into question. Hobbes discredited the belief in natural religion by claiming that
it is based on such things as opinions about ghosts, ignorance, and fear.17 Supernatural religion,
according to Hobbes, is based on miracles. But the credibility of these miracles is seriously
weakened, he said, by false miracles, contradictions, and injustice in the church that claims them to be
true. Furthermore, miracles actually weaken faith in that “miracles failing, faith also failed.”18
Hobbes undermines the credibility of miracles by placing them in such a poor light. He thus opened
the door for later deists and naturalists to deny the miraculous altogether. Of course, if Hobbes's
implication is right and miracles do not occur, then obviously the Bible cannot be a supernatural
revelation from God.
The Bible has absurdities we must accept by blind faith. Some have mistakenly held that
Kierkegaard taught that we must make a blind leap of faith into the realm of the rationally absurd. But
what Kierkegaard did not teach, Hobbes did. He explained that our “natural reason” is the
“undoubted word of God,” which is “not to be folded up in the Napkin of an Implicit Faith.” Hobbes
claimed that there are “many things in God's Word above Reason; that is to say, which cannot by
natural reason be either demonstrated, or confuted. . .” These are “not comprehensible” and we must
live by the “Will to obedience” to “forbear contradiction; when we so speak, as by lawful authority
we are commanded; . . . and Faith reposed in him that speaketh, though the mind be incapable of any
Notion at all from the words spoken.”19 Elsewhere Hobbes spoke of the deity of Christ and the
Trinity as untranslatable “absurdities.”20 If these words are taken seriously, it is one of the most
blatant forms of blind fideism ever proposed. What is significant to this study is the radical
separation of faith and reason and the apparent relegation of matters of faith to the unverifiable and
paradoxical realm of the absurd and contradictory.
Hobbes engaged in higher criticism of the Bible. Hobbes was one of the first modern writers to
engage in explicit higher criticism of the Scriptures. In one passage he boldly suggests that “the
Scriptures by the Spirit of God in man, mean a man's spirit, inclined to Godliness.”21 After claiming