Posted on May 14, 2013
In explicitly disposing of the full truthfulness of the Bible, Fuller Seminary professor Daniel Kirk marshals the frequent, and if I may say so, tiresome and worn-out, argument that the Bible must be read Christologically. G. C. Berkouwer and many others have made this argument long ago, but repetition of assertion is not equivalent to validity of argument. Dr. Kirk notes that 2 Tim. 3 asserts that all Scripture is God-breathed for the purpose of making us wise to salvation, and even though Paul teaches error about the historical Adam, he’s really making a theological point and isn’t especially concerned about the Bible’s “historical, scientific, or critical meaning.”
Aside from the fact that Dr. Kirk doesn’t seem to consider that the historicity of Adam may in fact impinge inescapably on the Bible’s Christological purpose, he doesn’t show why throwing inerrancy in the garbage exalts that Christological purpose. Indeed, one might want to argue that if we deny that the God-breathed Bible is truthful, we are assaulting Jesus Christ, not honoring him. After all, it was Jesus who verified the Old Testament dictum that man must live by every word that issues from God’s mouth (Mt. 4:4). To deny God’s Word isn’t to exalt Jesus but to degrade him.
Of course, Dr. Kirk also seems to hint that not all of the Bible is God-breathed, only those parts that fit his definition of Christocentricity. If so, he’s revived the liberal canard of a canon-within-a-canon, and the Bible becomes nothing more than a wax nose for him to twist into whatever he wants to make of it.
We’ve seen this film before, and we all know where it ends.