Chapter 4: The ultimate reason for the denial of Scriptural inerrancy

Why then, if so many proofs exist of Scripture’s inerrancy, are there so many doubters? One would think that in the interest of eternal self-preservation these people would be inclined to give God the benefit of the doubt. Why isn’t that the case?

In our world of technological sophistication and moral degeneration, there are two very powerful obstacles to the man on the street’s acceptance of Scripture as infallible. The first obstacle is a matter of character and has been noted in Scripture as the ultimate reason for the rejection of God: scoffers of God and the Bible do so not on the basis of intellect but for the sole reason of their selfish lusts. They just don’t want God telling them what to do (or, more to the point, what not to do). Appreciating subliminally if not overtly that Christianity implies selfless nobility, they want none of that. They want instead to maintain the right to put self above others – to get what they claim as their due, regardless of the implications regarding those who also want the same. They wish to continue rooting around in the filth of pornography, or to pursue those sexual deviations which so deliciously capture their imaginations. They want to get high whenever they like. They’d hire lawyers to sue their wealthier family members if they could get away with it. They live in the world of ‘To Thine Own Self be True’, which amounts to ‘Me First’. Understand what Paul in 2 Timothy 3:1-9 and Peter in 2 Peter 3:3-10 have to say about that sort of person:

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with diverse lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.”

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

The other obstacle to the acceptance of Scripture as inerrant appears to be an intellectual one, but it is not – it is rooted in materialism and the placement of the world and its things and delights over God, thereby putting it into the same category as the first obstacle. This obstacle is the belief, as most of us have been taught in school, that modern science clashes with Scripture with Scripture as the loser. It is not. Informed Christians, if not the public at large, are well aware of the many frauds that have been perpetrated in the name of science, particularly over the past century or so. Examples include the numerous fossil ‘discoveries’ of missing links between ape and man that turn out to be fakes (including the highly-touted Lucy), the circular reasoning behind the dating of strata, the glaring lack of a complete geological column, dating hanky-panky (and the constant revisions thereto), the intrusion of catastrophism on uniformitarian turf (an unwelcome turn of events that modern scientists have been forced to accept with great reluctance after realizing, from the ubiquitous presence of iridium ash wherever dinosaur bones were found, iridium being rare on earth but a common component of asteroids, that the dinosaurs died en masse and quite violently), the disturbing features of Venus and Mars that corroborate our recently-acquired picture of the dinosaur extinction event, and the development of devastatingly logical scenarios for the world as described by Scripture prior to the Flood, and for the Flood itself (which, as many have demonstrated, had to be universal). The driver behind many of these false beliefs is itself the greatest of the frauds, the theory of evolution. Before specifically addressing that item, it is worth noting that a Biblically-based reconstruction of the Flood naturally accommodates several apparent anomalies that mainstream science has been incapable of explaining and has therefore largely ignored. These include: the findings of mammoths flash-frozen in place, still edible, at least in the early 1900s, having well-preserved buttercups between their teeth, in regions where buttercups cannot grow and where insufficient food is available to maintain a mammoth population; the discovery of coal and oil in polar regions; the discovery of human artifacts embedded in coal; and the finding of fossilized trees in the upright position extending through multiple layers of strata that are supposedly separated in time by millions of years.

Unfortunately, we believe what we want to believe, and we believe who we want to believe. Given a set of false beliefs to begin with, we have an uncanny ability to construct logical proofs of their validity. Here is what Scripture, in 1 Timothy 6:20 and 21, and has to say about the matter:

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”

In 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, Scripture gets right to the point in assigning responsibility for these false beliefs:

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Now to the biggest of the lies, which not only is dishonest, but has hardened the hearts of many through its thrusting upon us a concept of God who is so remote as to leave the creation of mankind to the vagaries of chance over vast stretches of time, doing away altogether with his fall into sin and his need for the cross. This is the theory of evolution, which is the most obvious and sore point of conflict between Scripture and science. It is highly visible as a principle revered not only in the laboratory, but in virtually all schools as well as in museums and State and National Parks. Many of our most prominent scientists are fond of representing the theory as actual fact. It is not, as many whose careers put them in intimate contact with its teachings have come to appreciate, even to the astonishment of some. It has come under attack by an increasing number of highly respected scientists and intellectuals. As this has happened, one cannot help but notice the frantic, kneejerk responses offered by some in the teaching industry and media outlets such as the National Geographic press and television interests.

Throughout the short history of this theory, the Christian community largely has been on the defensive about it. Many Christians have attempted to accommodate it by integrating it into their theology. The results have been devastating to Christianity. What is worse, it has been an unnecessary problem to us, for we are beginning to peek behind the curtain of this Oz of our own making and we are finding nothing but a squat little wizard frantically manipulating the controls.

[to be continued]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: