Inerrancy - Where do you start

There is a blogger named Scott H. who reminds me a great deal of my father when he was my age. Same doctrines, same opinions, same denomination, teachings, and recently he's been mulling over Biblical inerrancy. I really want all the people who read his blog to hold the view I do (which seems overly simplistic to them I know, I thought the same of Baptists when I was CoC) so I'm going to take him up on an offer to tackle an apparent textual discrepancy. Compare the earlier account of Matthew 9:18- "While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live" with the later text of Mark 5:23 - "and implored him earnestly, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live" and the similar Luke 8:42 "for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying. As Jesus went, the people pressed around him."
In the first case it looks like the daughter has just perished, in the second, she's about to. How to resolve this?

The answer is found in another question. Do you believe that every word Jesus said is true and fully trustworthy?  I'm going to assume a "Yes" because otherwise I'm not dealing with someone who knows Jesus can't lie (Heb 6:18) and that calls for an entirely different blog post, attempting to convince someone Jesus is who He says and not only can be trusted, but must be trusted.
So yes, He is true in all His ways. We then come to John 10:35 and read, "Scripture cannot be broken." Now since we have God Himself saying that Scripture is perfect, and cannot be anything other than truth it stands to reason it cannot contradict itself, it cannot be a lie, and it cannot be proven false. It's literally breathed out by God, useful for teaching, rebuking, training in righteousness.

And if that is believed then the different accounts of Jairus daughter can easily be understood, because it doesn't take much effort to reconcile the record if you already believe that they were complementary rather than in opposition.

But you still ask, why are they different? The answer is that the gospel accounts are trying to emphasize different things. Matthew is written to the Jews, it's always using the word 'king' - there was a certain king, the kingdom of heaven is like, etc. It's thrust is to teach the Jews the right doctrine and lessons to show them the root and offspring of King David has come. Luke is written to a Roman Judge by a Gentile doctor, who is consumed with giving a fairly detailed and accurate account of the person and work of Christ. Mark is a call to the Gentiles showing the immediacy of His work as a servant and the story of the gospel stripped down to just the good news. Each author has taken the events and juxtaposed them topically, thus giving each a particular emphasis to the story.
In Matthew the account is preceded by the healing of the paralytic, the feasting with sinners and the instruction of the Pharisees about the newness of the Kingdom. It's followed by the healing of a man with demons and the Pharisees saying Jesus operated by demonic power.
In Luke the account is preceded by Jesus calming the storm and healing the man possessed by legion. It's followed by the first commission of the disciples.
In the Mark account it's preceded by Jesus healing the man possessed by Legion, and followed by Jesus returning to His hometown to teach.
At first glance Matthew appears to be wildly different, but this is because he is trying to make a point: the Pharisees largely rejected Jesus at every turn and sought to discredit Him. He on the other hand proved His divinity by forgiving sin and raising the dead. In Luke we have a closer narrative of the events, with the teaching of the Pharisees immediately before the healing left out entirely because the focus was on the miraculous ability to heal.
The Bible doesn't contradict itself, nor can it. Instead, every time it appears to it's worth investigating why one author is choosing to emphasize a certain truth and what they are trying to tell us, rather than demand Scripture be at fault or imperfect.

Post Script
I left out reconciling the text because it should be obvious that if you want to reconcile it you should have no problem doing so. However, if your faith is weak, and you are not taking my advice of doubting your doubts, I'll provide you the narrative if you mash all the details together. Luke 8:41-51 is in green, Mark 5:21-37 is in blue, and Matthew is in red.

And when Jesus returned [and] had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd [was] waiting for him, gathered about him, welcomed him, and he was beside the sea.  

"Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved." While he was saying these things to them, behold, there came a man named Jairus, who was a ruler of the synagogue. And seeing him, And falling at Jesus' feet, he implored him earnestly to come to his house, for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live." And he went with him. 

And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him. As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians, all that she had, and had suffered much under many physicians, she could not be healed by anyone, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Jesus, came up behind him in the crowd and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said, "If I touch even his garments, I will be made well." and immediately her discharge of blood ceased and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Jesus perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd said, "Who was it that touched me?" When all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!" And his disciples said to him, "You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, 'Who touched me?'" But Jesus said, "Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me."And he looked around to see who had done it. And when the woman, knowing what had happened to her, saw that she was not hidden, she came in fear and trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed, the whole truth. And he said to her, "Take heart, Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease."

While he was still speaking, someone from the ruler's house came and said, "Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher any more." But Jesus on overhearing this answered him, "Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well." and [he] knelt before Him "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live."

And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child. 

Matthew has only condensed the account and picked up the most important element to the Jew: the raising of the dead.

The Crux of the Book of Jonah

Jonah is one of my favorite stories in the OT, and in particular I find verse 16 very fascinating: “Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice to the Lord and took vows.” Here I postulate that this is one of the, if not the key verses in the book.

The casual reader is immediately struck by the character of the sailors with Jonah, which is in stark contrast to the prophets own nature. They are of a decent lot; they try everything they can to save the life of Jonah who hated them, even unto rowing back to their original port and returning him, while he tries as hard as he can to kill the whole city of Nineveh (population 600,000) down to the last man, woman, child, and livestock.

Unsuccessful and God fearing, they beg Him not to hold Jonah’s blood against them, and admit to the sovereignty of God “for you O Lord have done as it pleased You” and hurl him over board. (For myself, I think Jonah asked for it on purpose to get out of preaching to Nineveh. “If you will not let me go God then I will take my own life.” Which would be the parallel to 4:9 “It is right for me to be angry, even to death!”) Immediately the sea grows calm, and seeing this they knew God was behind it, and doing this to teach his prophet a lesson. I think that lesson was verse 16.

How did Jonah know that they began to make sacrifices and vows, to fear God and marvel at His power? Either because much later he found these same sea-farers and caught up with them, or much more likely, because he floated there watching them.  We often focus on the lesson God taught Jonah through the plant, but I think that this is the big one, considering that this was the last thing Jonah was to see before being swallowed by the fish for three days. That would make for a strong memory: the image of them sailing away praising God and giving thanks to Him while Jonah was left alone and cold, in danger of drowning. 

The text doesn’t say if it was day or night, (I think night, as a parallel to Jesus calming the storm) and it doesn’t say how long Jonah spent trying to stay afloat, but in my minds eye I see the sailors on the ship with lanterns and faces aglow while Jonah tries as long and hard as he can to stay alive, now giving it all of his energy.  It’s one thing to have courage in the moment, but when push came to shove drowning didn’t look so appealing and Jonahs flesh sided with God against his rebellious spirit, and attemped to keep him alive. Eventually however his strength gives out, and first the waves, then the seaweed closed over him, and then just about the last thing you would expect happens: he gets eaten. (More speculation: it’s a really giant catfish, they have a swim bladder full of air that he could have climbed up into (or put his head in) connected to their digestive track.)

Now at last, with no room to move, and with nothing to do, Jonah reflects on those sailors and the imagery he saw while waiting to die. It takes him three days but at last he understands, and copies them, and vows to do the will of the One who is Sovereign (see 1:9).  Having understood at last Jonah sets off to Nineveh.

But he still doesn’t get all of it. He still wants them to die. “I’ll do your will but I’m not going to enjoy it.” God has to send a plant, and then a worm, and then the sirocco to teach him the rest of it: I’m a loving God.  “You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than on hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right and their left- and much live-stock?”
Now Jonah sees there is not a particular nation that God cares about to the exclusion of everything else, but that God is omni-benevolent.  God saves the Gentile sailors, the Gentile Kings, the Gentile peasants. He saves the Namaans and the Nebuchadnezzars too. He gets it.

Now Jonah sits down and writes the book, deliberately showing the goodness of God shining through the sailors against his own black heart.  Now he juxtaposes the King of Nineveh repenting in sackcloth and ashes with himself on a mountain hoping it wasn’t a genuine repentance. And foremost in his mind is v 16, the conclusion of the story for the sailors, which is the parallel to Nineveh, they went away praising God for His mercy.

I think Jonah did too.

Predestination as a Diode

The diode. This little baby is a great thing for electronics: it only passes electrical current in one direction. When the voltage potential is high on the left side and the low on the right side then current flows. It's a wire.
When voltage is high on the right and low on the left current does not flow. It's an open.

Schematic Symbol for the Diode

Now instead of the word diode, let's call it predestination- it still functions the same way. Let's call the left side the Will of God, or better yet let's just call it Grace, and the right side will be our account, or our record. When the grace of God builds up really high on the left side it flows through the barriers and onto the right, and we can say that Salvation is all of Grace. We were predestined to it. It's by Grace alone that we are what we are.
But when when do not have grace on the left side predestination is blocked. The right side is cut off, and you cannot say that my condemnation was predestined to happen by God's will. It's no good to say that God demanded I be damned.
It's an imperfect illustration if you press it, I like that we have a physical illustration in nature of something that is clearly a one way street. God get's the credit for the good, and we get the blame for the bad.

J Vernon McGee used the illustration of a doorway of salvation; on the other side is written the words 'predestined' but you could not read that off the post until you pass through the frame. It's sort of the same illustration, you cannot blame God for your own faults, you cannot have the same perspective for both events. If we are damned it is because we have chosen it against His pleas, and if we are saved it's because He had mercy on us.

Double Payment Destroys Substutionary Atonement

Dave "the grizzled-civil-war-veteran-with-an-Aussie-accent" Ponter has been speculating on John Owen's concept of faith and atonement with an interesting, but, standard observation: faith, must be a special kind of gift because not only is it purchased, but it is given from the cross. This means that the gift of faith drags with it automatic atonement.
That's why from now on I'm calling this viewpoint the double purchase fallacy. It's a complete denial of the substutionary model in almost every way.

See, in subsutionary atonement Christ swaps His perfect record for the sinner's guilty one at the moment they put their faith in Him. But it is in fact a substitution. Christ has lived the perfect life, and has been counted as a sinner on the cross, that He may in turn account the believer with His righteousness. Faith is a conduit, it's a channel of grace, allowing the swap to take place. The important thing here is that it's an accounting, as if it were true. Martin Luther called us "snow covered dung." If the Catholics aren't calling it a legal fiction then we are not holding the historic doctrine properly.

In the double purchase fallacy Christ pardons sinful men because He purchases a positive record of righteousness through His suffering. It's not because of His active obedience of growing up and keeping the law of Moses that He has a good record, but because He suffers. Our inheritance and justification is bundled together as a single event: redemption in one fell swoop. 
But then He goes on to make a second purchase, this time of faith, for the elect. And since He purchases it  there is no need to apply it. Righteousness is no longer an accounting, it's an actuality. The blood doesn't cover the record of sin, it expunges it. This would be "snow covered snow."

The problem with Owen's view is manifold and they are all intertwined: commercial vs judicial payment model, temporal vs atemporal position in time, and this, so I hope I'm being clear with my point here. In the double purchase model Christ's procures His perfect righteousness as a gift for the elect by dent of His suffering, and from that and that alone. He then also purchases for man it's application, and together these two purchases make up all of our salvation.
Thus annihilating our free agency, our being under wrath until faith, our being simultaneously justified and yet sinful. All of salvation is rolled up into two commercial transactions made from the cross. So much for the substutionary model.

Hodge and Christ dying for all men

It's pretty well established that Hodge believed in an 'unlimited' atonement, but something that he said surprised me. In volume II section 4 - Philological and Moral Evidence (of a common ancestor) while talking about the evidence that we all descended from a common pair of people Hodge says this

Christ died for all men, and we are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature under heaven. Accordingly nowhere on the face of the earth are men to be found who do not need the gospel or who are not capable of becoming partakers of the blessings which it offers.  The spiritual relationship of men, their common apostasy, and their common interest in the redemption of Christ, demonstrate their common nature and their common origin beyond the possibility of reasonable or excusable doubt."

This astonishes me because here I am going around trying to show that because Christ dies as a man His death is good for all men, while the hyper-Calvinists are saying He died only for the elect. Much like atheists of old the modern Calvinist is asserting that there is a separate kind of humanity, a separate, unsavable group. Yesterday the eugenicists were saying it was black people; today it's the non-elect.
But even more startling, I'm using the shared humanity to prove unlimited atonement, yet 150 years ago it was completely the other way around. People were using the death of Christ for all men as proof that all men come from Adam.
How far we have come in accepting the truth, only to backslide all the way down the hill.

Seeing what isn't there

My son has a 103 fever from the shots we gave him today at the doctors office, and that got me thinking, as a parent it's easy to be on guard against the things you can see, but it's really difficult to be on guard against what's missing.

It's easy for me to look at him and say, oh, he has a fever, we had better call the doctor because this added pathogen is not good for him, but it's really hard for me to look at him and say, he's got a deficiency due to a lack of nutrition.

It's therefore easy to look without wisdom at the Liberal churches and hear them talk about how Jesus was a man, and how He lived a life as a man, and agree to all that, or to talk with Catholics and see how zealous they are for protecting the unborn, and how they pray to Christ, or to listen to a Rick Warren sermon and think that he didn't say anything wrong or offensive.

What's really hard to do is to look at something and see what is lacking. To look at the Catholic church and see that they lack grace, or that the liberals lack the divinity of Christ, or Rick Warren lacks any real substance or knowledge of justification by faith alone. What's even harder is trying to help someone in this situation, because they immediately default to the thought that you were attacking a positive belief, rather than the deficiency.

What you must do in those circumstances is look at the results of what is going on, the fruit. Or if you have a knowledge of what the finished product should be you can see where the deficiency lies. This is why we left the Churches of Christ, because at some point we figured that the lack of talk about repentance, and justification, and election were such serious things, and why when we tried to talk about it, nobody seemed to understand.
The older I get the more I see the need for a church to be integrated across the age groups, so that we have a number of old people telling us what we are missing. I used to think of it as a painful burden "You kids these days need to blah blah blah work with your hands" but now I wonder if they are not actually out of love doing the hardest thing of all: telling us what we are not seeing for our own good.

How did John know part II

John seems to me to be the young man who has a tremendous heart for Christ, who leaves the temples and synagogues, the traditional places of learning where he was respected as a bright young up and comer (John 18:16) to follow after where he believes God is calling him from. John leaves it all behind to investigate the person of John the Baptist who has been declaring the Lord is coming soon, where he then becomes his disciple.

John's account of the John the Baptizer appears much more personal than the equivalent record in the synoptics, (John 1:29), for whereas Luke records the sermon given to the people John we have a first hand account of the matter (John 1:35-39) where John testifies personally that Jesus is the Christ before Jesus calls them out to follow Him.

That's why I think (and I mean this is only as a conjecture) that after making a scene and appearing to everyone in the temple at Jerusalem that first year Nicodemus had a personal chat with John. John explained that yes, he was Jesus disciple, and yes, he thought there was a good reason for believing in Jesus as the Christ. Nicodemus, who was sympathetic to John, decides then to go for himself and see this rabbi by night.
If they were friends in some way it would go a long way to explaining why Nicodemus makes a three fold showing in John's gospel (John 7:50, 19:39 being the other two) and nowhere in the other Gospel accounts.

So perhaps John was informed of the secret council decisions of the Sanhedrin like in John 11:47 because Paul was on the council and later told him. Or perhaps it's because he had friend(s) on the inside and they talked it over later on as they pieced it together.