Scan barcode
jaybatson's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
4.5
In the world in which we live in 2023 both Christians and non-Christians alike will encounter situations where a Christian will claim his/her view on a topic is formed by what the Christian Bible says. However, implicit in that statement will be a set of rules about how that individual reads & interprets what the Bible says. And not all Christians utilize the same rule set for this, which leads to divergence in how different Christians will interpret "what the Bible says."
So while Christians nearly universally agree on key things emerging from the Bible, that agreement starts to diverge as topics get further into details based on how that Christian "reads" the Ble.
For instance, one person using a "literal" inerrancy ruleset will read the Genesis creation story as representing a 7-earth-day, "young earth" history. Yet another person will read the same passage as displaying the creative act of a single God ordering the void, written in a manner that is artistically composed and theologically deep, especially against the ancient backdrop around at the time of its writing.
This book explores those different rulesets by asking five authors to describe their ruleset, support the validity of that ruleset within the bounds of Christianity, and then apply it to some traditionally "difficult" interpretational passages. After each author writes their bit, the other four offer a reaction / counterpoint to that author, challenging or agreeing or distinguishing as they see fit.
Because the Bible is central to Christian faith & witness, every professing Christian must - implicitly or explicitly - have a ruleset / method with which they are comfortable.
Importantly, for many who call themselves evangelicals, the ruleset called Biblical inerrancy...
So while Christians nearly universally agree on key things emerging from the Bible, that agreement starts to diverge as topics get further into details based on how that Christian "reads" the Ble.
For instance, one person using a "literal" inerrancy ruleset will read the Genesis creation story as representing a 7-earth-day, "young earth" history. Yet another person will read the same passage as displaying the creative act of a single God ordering the void, written in a manner that is artistically composed and theologically deep, especially against the ancient backdrop around at the time of its writing.
This book explores those different rulesets by asking five authors to describe their ruleset, support the validity of that ruleset within the bounds of Christianity, and then apply it to some traditionally "difficult" interpretational passages. After each author writes their bit, the other four offer a reaction / counterpoint to that author, challenging or agreeing or distinguishing as they see fit.
Because the Bible is central to Christian faith & witness, every professing Christian must - implicitly or explicitly - have a ruleset / method with which they are comfortable.
Importantly, for many who call themselves evangelicals, the ruleset called Biblical inerrancy...
... is crucial to securing the centrality of the Bible. Inerrancy has been commonly viewed as the doctrine upon which evangelicalism stands or falls.
The definition and use of the word "inerrancy" can, however, be just as broad as the ruleset. And inerrancy is not simply a stand-alone doctrine; it is interconnected with others, and resulting debates become heated.
This book, then, tries to reduce the heat, and open conversations among professing Christians to how to read the Bible in a way that presents Christians a path to increasing their wisdom & build their faith in and love for God.
I have several personal takeaways from this book. First, the introduction and conclusion by the editors / organizers (Merrick & Garrett) make the book worth the purchase alone. Their context & framing is as valuable as the individual insights within each contributor's section.
Second, hearing the different views on reading the Bible faithfully, but differently than how I've been told in the past to do so, has helped me see how to use different ways of reading scripture to get different perspectives that - in the end - strengthen my relationship with a loving God.
Third, it was immensely valuable to get outside my North American walls and see how the global community reads the Bible differently, and realize how much of how we North Americans are told to read scripture is formed - and unnecessarily constrained - by our unique history.
Finally, though - and maybe this is okay, yet uncomfortable - the result of reading all this is that I'm left a tiny-bit unmoored. I now have an ability to see how to read scripture differently than I did before, but exactly what (which) framework / ruleset I feel is "the one" eludes me. I'm a bit left adrift. However, I at least have the tools now that I can use to anchor myself when I need to.
This isn't a book for the faint of heart, or weak-of-faith. It is, however, a book that can help Christians who struggle with being told "the Bible says ...." and feeling like they're not feeling comfortable that they draw the same conclusions as the one saying so.
rustadmd's review against another edition
4.0
Very thoughtful book. Most of the authors had good thoughts on the subject. Here's a basic summary of each position with my thoughts:
Mohler: Standard literal inerrancy (the Bible is correct in every literal detail). I found Mohler's position the weakest of the bunch. I don't buy the idea that a historical discrepancy causes the entire truthfulness of Scripture and God into question. This idea has Mohler unable to acknowledge real problems and deal with them meaningfully. I found him most thoughtful in his responses to the others, but his outlined position was not very good.
Enns: Dump inerrancy, replace with ?. I found Enn's diagnosis to be on point in several respects. He is willing to deal with the problems seriously. However, I find his prescription to be lacking. His handling of the problem texts doesn't leave a satisfying solution.
Bird: Infallibility (Scripture is accurate in faith/salvation matters), also inerrancy is American, modern and political. I liked Bird's assessment of the cultural implications of inerrancy and how it is used. In practice, he appears to take similar stances to Mohler on the problem texts.
Vanhoozer: Well-versed Inerrancy. Vanhoozer attempts to draw back the strong positions of Mohler. I found his ideas the most compelling, emphasizing historical and literary methods to make sure that we carefully distinguish interpretation from the text itself. I found his solutions to some of the problems compelling, but fails to deal meaningfully with the Jericho issue. I also prefer ditching the term 'inerrant' due to some of the baggage and mishandling that Franke and Bird discuss.
Franke: Plural theologies is somehow inerrancy? I am found Franke to be more thoughtful than I expected. Many of his objections circle around an objection foundationalism, which I found intriguing but not convincing. He argues that there is a diversity of theology in the Bible and we should not attempt to harmonize them. However this seems to then fall into picking whichever seems most amenable when there is a conflict (Canaan conquest vs. Love your neighbor). I also don't really understand how he can still term his position 'inerrant'.
Mohler: Standard literal inerrancy (the Bible is correct in every literal detail). I found Mohler's position the weakest of the bunch. I don't buy the idea that a historical discrepancy causes the entire truthfulness of Scripture and God into question. This idea has Mohler unable to acknowledge real problems and deal with them meaningfully. I found him most thoughtful in his responses to the others, but his outlined position was not very good.
Enns: Dump inerrancy, replace with ?. I found Enn's diagnosis to be on point in several respects. He is willing to deal with the problems seriously. However, I find his prescription to be lacking. His handling of the problem texts doesn't leave a satisfying solution.
Bird: Infallibility (Scripture is accurate in faith/salvation matters), also inerrancy is American, modern and political. I liked Bird's assessment of the cultural implications of inerrancy and how it is used. In practice, he appears to take similar stances to Mohler on the problem texts.
Vanhoozer: Well-versed Inerrancy. Vanhoozer attempts to draw back the strong positions of Mohler. I found his ideas the most compelling, emphasizing historical and literary methods to make sure that we carefully distinguish interpretation from the text itself. I found his solutions to some of the problems compelling, but fails to deal meaningfully with the Jericho issue. I also prefer ditching the term 'inerrant' due to some of the baggage and mishandling that Franke and Bird discuss.
Franke: Plural theologies is somehow inerrancy? I am found Franke to be more thoughtful than I expected. Many of his objections circle around an objection foundationalism, which I found intriguing but not convincing. He argues that there is a diversity of theology in the Bible and we should not attempt to harmonize them. However this seems to then fall into picking whichever seems most amenable when there is a conflict (Canaan conquest vs. Love your neighbor). I also don't really understand how he can still term his position 'inerrant'.
erindarlyn's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
This was a really interesting read. I listened to the audio version, which I would definitely recommend. It was wonderful to be able to listen to the differing positions in each of the authors’ own voices.
The book is formatted such that five men each present a different view and after each one, the other four each respond to that view from their perspectives.
It was an enjoyable read, and I appreciated that the authors’ positions and rebuttals were largely respectful and professional.
I listened to this book through my library via Hoopla, but I’ll be adding a hard copy to my permanent collection.
The book is formatted such that five men each present a different view and after each one, the other four each respond to that view from their perspectives.
It was an enjoyable read, and I appreciated that the authors’ positions and rebuttals were largely respectful and professional.
I listened to this book through my library via Hoopla, but I’ll be adding a hard copy to my permanent collection.
scottacorbin's review against another edition
4.0
I was very excited about this book since I first heard about it several months ago. I'm glad that the editors compiled some heavyweights in evangelical scholarship to hash out issues related to inerrancy.
Without being too longwinded, I found myself mostly in agreement with a blend of Mohler / Vanhoozer's contributions. Yet, I still very much profited and was challenged by Enns & Franke, in particular. Bird's essay, while also good, mostly had me thinking about cultural issues related to inerrancy.
I would encourage this for those who are wanting to understand nuances about the what inerrancy is and does, but would not recommend for someone who wants to do a little light reading on the subject. Like the other Counterpoints books, it can wade into some strange waters which, if you like that type of thing like me, go ahead and dive in. But if you're looking for a more hot tub style inerrancy, I would advise the reader to look elsewhere.
Without being too longwinded, I found myself mostly in agreement with a blend of Mohler / Vanhoozer's contributions. Yet, I still very much profited and was challenged by Enns & Franke, in particular. Bird's essay, while also good, mostly had me thinking about cultural issues related to inerrancy.
I would encourage this for those who are wanting to understand nuances about the what inerrancy is and does, but would not recommend for someone who wants to do a little light reading on the subject. Like the other Counterpoints books, it can wade into some strange waters which, if you like that type of thing like me, go ahead and dive in. But if you're looking for a more hot tub style inerrancy, I would advise the reader to look elsewhere.
vanjr's review against another edition
3.0
Five different views of inerrancy from a those with inerrant or nearly inerrant stance. Useful to see some variation and discussion rather than one sentence polemic statements that say "my way or the highway." Several useful things came out of it for me. First and most important is that the subject of inerrancy can be a theological club to pound home a singular interpretation of a passage. This book allows some to disarm the theological club technique. (It was good to see that Mohler's inerrancy take is not the only one out there.)
I am pleasantly surprised that many other reviewers had positive statements on Vanhoozer. I had not heard of him, but am interested in reading some of his other material after being exposed to him in this volume.
Recommended for those who are interested in this topic. (Not all are, nor should they).
I am pleasantly surprised that many other reviewers had positive statements on Vanhoozer. I had not heard of him, but am interested in reading some of his other material after being exposed to him in this volume.
Recommended for those who are interested in this topic. (Not all are, nor should they).
sonofthunder's review against another edition
4.0
I have been putting off writing this review mainly because I'm still not quite sure where I stand, even after finishing it! I started off this book feeling extremely negative and not at all impressed by the editorial bias that seemed to be showing. But now I'm feeling this was a fairly successful book at what it set out to do. For truly, what was this book? It aimed to show multiple perspectives both defining the doctrine of inerrancy and setting out what it is or should be, specifically in light of the way inerrancy was defined in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (henceforth abbreviated to CSBI). Apologies for the previous convoluted sentence, but if it made your head hurt, that's how my head felt reading this book. But in a good way? It is not a bad thing to wrestle with one's beliefs and attempt to understand the convictions you hold and understand what they mean. Inerrancy is something that I have heard about for a long time now - and my understanding of this term has come with certain assumptions. Reading a book with five scholars debating back and forth about what biblical inerrancy is (or isn't) was fascinating and definitely eye-opening. I came at this book from a position of ignorance of the theological and scholarly debating history on this topic. I started reading this book and said "What's a CSBI?" I obviously have heard of a few of these scholars, but Mohler is the only one who I had any real exposure to before reading this book (heard him preach at Ligonier a few times and have read some of his articles!) He is a classic polemicist who is willing to fight for what he believes is biblical truth and he doesn't pull his punches. I rather assumed I would totally agree with him and be dismissive of the other authors. And...while I'm not saying I disagree with Mohler, reading all five of these perspectives opened my mind in certain ways and gave me a greater understanding of those who don't necessarily believe in inerrancy in the way I've been taught. So for all of that, this book was most welcomed.
That said. I did have some struggles with how this book was laid out. My initial accusation of editorial bias in the structure of this book may have been a bit strong, but I still believe that this book's portrayal of inerrancy was a bit slanted because of the strictures put on the contributors by the editors. The editors asked the contributors to discuss inerrancy particularly in regards to the way inerrancy was defined by the CSBI (long held to be the definitive word on inerrancy - as before said, to my ignorance and shame apparently). The editors also asked each contributor to look at 3 distinct biblical texts and discuss any perceived issues with those texts in light of their view on inerrancy. Again (most certainly because of my lack of knowledge and involvement in this arena), none of these texts I have previously looked at before as being in any way problematic. So my eyes were opened in that regard (for which I am grateful!). But, the texts chosen did seem to be chosen with an eye to challenging those holding to a higher view of inerrancy while giving those with a looser view of inerrancy an open field for pushing their arguments across. Again though, as someone who feels it is not a bad thing to have to wrestle with one's convictions and beliefs in this (and other) areas, this was actually helpful for me. One of the main contentions I have with this book is the term inerrancy itself. What does biblical inerrancy actually mean? If I do a quick search engine query I get a definition for inerrant being "incapable of being wrong". With that basic secular definition, it would seem that a definition of biblical inerrancy would be something along the lines of the "Bible being incapable of being wrong". But what does "wrong" mean? And that is a very sticky question. The whole point of the CSBI seems to have been to properly define or delineate the term biblical inerrancy. No self-respecting Christian professing to be in the bounds of orthodox Christianity would want to say "I do not believe the Bible is inerrant" thus the definition of this term is extremely important. The five contributors to this book all have their own spin on the definition of inerrancy, but here I feel the book falls down a bit. By directing the contributors to focus on the CSBI, they give certain contributors a clear window to attack the CSBI and its perceived shortcomings instead of actually putting forth their own preferred definition of inerrancy (or stating that the concept of inerrancy is unhelpful and should not be used). I would have preferred a slightly more open question to be put to these authors. Instead of focusing on the CSBI - answer the questions of "How would you define biblical inerrancy?" and "Is this a necessary doctrine of the Christian church?" or something of the like. But writing these words, I waver. A much bigger book would have needed to be written. As the editors themselves acknowledge in the conclusion, the scope of this discussion might have been a bit wider than they anticipated.
Nonetheless. I ramble. Back to this book. The contributors themselves all are highly trained and educated and I appreciated the chance to eavesdrop on their debates with one another. I quite enjoyed the format of the book in which each contributor got a chapter, then each other contributor was able to respond to that chapter. By the end of the book, you are quite able to anticipate their responses and lines of attack! If you want to have a brief understanding of each contributor, you could put them on a spectrum as I did. Starting with the most "fundamentalist" and ending at the most theologically "liberal", you go: Mohler, Vanhoozer, Bird, Franke, Enns. I think that's fair. I quite liked Bird's writing style and humour! He had the most relaxed tone of the five and I would love to sit and have a meal with him! I did disagree with some of his conclusions and I don't think his qualms with the CSBI were quite warranted. While it is fair to make points on the lack of international representation of the contributors to the CSBI, I don't see how this is a worthy criticism of the merits of the statement itself. Still, I appreciated his graciousness and love for the gospel and desire to see all peoples come to Christ. Enns...oh what do I say about Enns. While I know he is quite intelligent and could walk rings around myself in debate, his view of inerrancy troubled me the most. I almost wish he would have just said "I do not believe the Bible is inerrant" but of course he could not go that far (again - what does inerrant mean?) Franke's thoughts on inerrancy also challenged me and while I appreciated his writing style, I could not fully agree with his conclusions. As for Mohler, while I don't disagree that "when the Bible speaks, God speaks", I did feel his chapter was not as strong as it could have been, to my surprise. I went into this book expecting to be fully on Team Mohler. He wrote his chapter from a position of "You believe the Bible is inerrant...or else." My words, not his! But he came out swinging and I don't think he did a good job of adequately addressing the legitimate concerns of those who are not quite sure what biblical inerrancy means. While I appreciate Mohler's passion for the truth of God, I think he could have written in a slightly more piercing and enlightening way instead of bluntly dismissing those who have questions. I thought Mohler's responses to each of the other contributor's chapters were far better written than his actual chapter! As for Vanhoozer, I may have enjoyed his chapter the most! Of course, enjoyment is probably the wrong word. But while I still cannot say I disagree with Mohler, I feel that Vanhoozer had some of the best and most insightful statements on what Biblical inerrancy actually is. As someone with a rather intellectual bent, I appreciated the way he worded his arguments and spoke to the real questions that some have on the "issues" in the Bible. Am I Team Vanhoozer? Possibly!!
Now I have written far more words than I should be writing for this book. Far more than I have written for a review yet. But I see this book as one that is discussing something most critical in our current age. What is truth? That question still rings in our ears and we all want to know the answer. Is the Bible truth? If so, how should we read it to find this truth out? Does the Bible perfectly communicate truth? If so, in what way? This book fascinated me, because all five contributors (and the editors!) would say that the Bible does perfectly communicate truth. But our interpretations of the Bible's communicated truth differ. This book may have been more helpful if it would have honestly acknowledged that the real issue isn't the definition of inerrancy, but rather - how should Scripture be interpreted to understand what God is communicating to us? (Almost) no orthodox Christian believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. (Almost) all orthodox Christians understand the differing genres of the Biblical texts and of the varying ways in which language is used. All orthodox Christians would agree that when we read that Christ rose again, He actually rose again. But which texts are not meant to be read in such straightforward fashion? I would have loved a little bit of an acknowledgement of the critical nature of hermeneutics as applied to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. We didn't get that here - instead we got a sharp focus on the CSBI and the assumption of a fundamentalist reading of that statement by the majority of the contributors. Even the editors (as much as I appreciated their candor and passion for God's gospel!) seemed to have their hand on the scale a bit in terms of the texts chosen for discussion. While I appreciate and agree with the need for cordial Christian dialogue, cordiality itself should not be the desired end goal of such a book. What is truth? Is there truth? And if so, can we know it? This last question may betray an unredeemable Western perspective, but acknowledging God speaks acknowledges that God has a message to communicate in a way that may be understood by created beings. At the end of the day though, with all my prickliness and my pride acknowledged, I do believe this book was a helpful read for me. Would I recommend it to all? I'm not sure. Some that are struggling with their faith may find this book challenging. By the grace of God, my faith in the nature and work of God is strong and I still found certain parts of this book challenging to my conception of Scripture. But the side of me that appreciates knowing what others believe and think about our Christian faith rather liked reading this. Each of these men genuinely seemed to have a passion and love for the God of the Bible, no matter how wrong some of them may be. Each of these men genuinely wanted to communicate their understanding of the Bible and the truths it contains. I long that all people may come to the written word of God and see the glories of His salvation as communicated most fully in the person of Jesus Christ. God came to this world and was born, died and rose again. These truths are sure. We may quibble on some of our interpretations of other texts but I am still grateful to call these men brothers who confess themselves born again in the knowledge of the gospel. Last thoughts? Should you read this book? I think it's worthwhile and if anything, it's actually increased my faith (or should I say - the Spirit has increased my faith as I've considered the wonder of the God who speaks!) If you are currently struggling with your faith or understanding of who God is, this book might not be a helpful starting point. It's rather academic and at times pedantic and may discourage you more than anything. But it is a helpful aid to understanding certain evangelical perspectives on Biblical inerrancy and for that, I thank the editors and contributors. I believe this book accomplished what they set out to do and for that, I cannot fault it. I glory as I think that God has given certain people such gifts of intelligence and ease with words but I would ask that we all remember at the end of the day, knowledge is not the end. Instead, let us as little children kneel humbly before God and rest in faith in Him, knowing that He is God and He desires that we be with Him.
That said. I did have some struggles with how this book was laid out. My initial accusation of editorial bias in the structure of this book may have been a bit strong, but I still believe that this book's portrayal of inerrancy was a bit slanted because of the strictures put on the contributors by the editors. The editors asked the contributors to discuss inerrancy particularly in regards to the way inerrancy was defined by the CSBI (long held to be the definitive word on inerrancy - as before said, to my ignorance and shame apparently). The editors also asked each contributor to look at 3 distinct biblical texts and discuss any perceived issues with those texts in light of their view on inerrancy. Again (most certainly because of my lack of knowledge and involvement in this arena), none of these texts I have previously looked at before as being in any way problematic. So my eyes were opened in that regard (for which I am grateful!). But, the texts chosen did seem to be chosen with an eye to challenging those holding to a higher view of inerrancy while giving those with a looser view of inerrancy an open field for pushing their arguments across. Again though, as someone who feels it is not a bad thing to have to wrestle with one's convictions and beliefs in this (and other) areas, this was actually helpful for me. One of the main contentions I have with this book is the term inerrancy itself. What does biblical inerrancy actually mean? If I do a quick search engine query I get a definition for inerrant being "incapable of being wrong". With that basic secular definition, it would seem that a definition of biblical inerrancy would be something along the lines of the "Bible being incapable of being wrong". But what does "wrong" mean? And that is a very sticky question. The whole point of the CSBI seems to have been to properly define or delineate the term biblical inerrancy. No self-respecting Christian professing to be in the bounds of orthodox Christianity would want to say "I do not believe the Bible is inerrant" thus the definition of this term is extremely important. The five contributors to this book all have their own spin on the definition of inerrancy, but here I feel the book falls down a bit. By directing the contributors to focus on the CSBI, they give certain contributors a clear window to attack the CSBI and its perceived shortcomings instead of actually putting forth their own preferred definition of inerrancy (or stating that the concept of inerrancy is unhelpful and should not be used). I would have preferred a slightly more open question to be put to these authors. Instead of focusing on the CSBI - answer the questions of "How would you define biblical inerrancy?" and "Is this a necessary doctrine of the Christian church?" or something of the like. But writing these words, I waver. A much bigger book would have needed to be written. As the editors themselves acknowledge in the conclusion, the scope of this discussion might have been a bit wider than they anticipated.
Nonetheless. I ramble. Back to this book. The contributors themselves all are highly trained and educated and I appreciated the chance to eavesdrop on their debates with one another. I quite enjoyed the format of the book in which each contributor got a chapter, then each other contributor was able to respond to that chapter. By the end of the book, you are quite able to anticipate their responses and lines of attack! If you want to have a brief understanding of each contributor, you could put them on a spectrum as I did. Starting with the most "fundamentalist" and ending at the most theologically "liberal", you go: Mohler, Vanhoozer, Bird, Franke, Enns. I think that's fair. I quite liked Bird's writing style and humour! He had the most relaxed tone of the five and I would love to sit and have a meal with him! I did disagree with some of his conclusions and I don't think his qualms with the CSBI were quite warranted. While it is fair to make points on the lack of international representation of the contributors to the CSBI, I don't see how this is a worthy criticism of the merits of the statement itself. Still, I appreciated his graciousness and love for the gospel and desire to see all peoples come to Christ. Enns...oh what do I say about Enns. While I know he is quite intelligent and could walk rings around myself in debate, his view of inerrancy troubled me the most. I almost wish he would have just said "I do not believe the Bible is inerrant" but of course he could not go that far (again - what does inerrant mean?) Franke's thoughts on inerrancy also challenged me and while I appreciated his writing style, I could not fully agree with his conclusions. As for Mohler, while I don't disagree that "when the Bible speaks, God speaks", I did feel his chapter was not as strong as it could have been, to my surprise. I went into this book expecting to be fully on Team Mohler. He wrote his chapter from a position of "You believe the Bible is inerrant...or else." My words, not his! But he came out swinging and I don't think he did a good job of adequately addressing the legitimate concerns of those who are not quite sure what biblical inerrancy means. While I appreciate Mohler's passion for the truth of God, I think he could have written in a slightly more piercing and enlightening way instead of bluntly dismissing those who have questions. I thought Mohler's responses to each of the other contributor's chapters were far better written than his actual chapter! As for Vanhoozer, I may have enjoyed his chapter the most! Of course, enjoyment is probably the wrong word. But while I still cannot say I disagree with Mohler, I feel that Vanhoozer had some of the best and most insightful statements on what Biblical inerrancy actually is. As someone with a rather intellectual bent, I appreciated the way he worded his arguments and spoke to the real questions that some have on the "issues" in the Bible. Am I Team Vanhoozer? Possibly!!
Now I have written far more words than I should be writing for this book. Far more than I have written for a review yet. But I see this book as one that is discussing something most critical in our current age. What is truth? That question still rings in our ears and we all want to know the answer. Is the Bible truth? If so, how should we read it to find this truth out? Does the Bible perfectly communicate truth? If so, in what way? This book fascinated me, because all five contributors (and the editors!) would say that the Bible does perfectly communicate truth. But our interpretations of the Bible's communicated truth differ. This book may have been more helpful if it would have honestly acknowledged that the real issue isn't the definition of inerrancy, but rather - how should Scripture be interpreted to understand what God is communicating to us? (Almost) no orthodox Christian believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. (Almost) all orthodox Christians understand the differing genres of the Biblical texts and of the varying ways in which language is used. All orthodox Christians would agree that when we read that Christ rose again, He actually rose again. But which texts are not meant to be read in such straightforward fashion? I would have loved a little bit of an acknowledgement of the critical nature of hermeneutics as applied to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. We didn't get that here - instead we got a sharp focus on the CSBI and the assumption of a fundamentalist reading of that statement by the majority of the contributors. Even the editors (as much as I appreciated their candor and passion for God's gospel!) seemed to have their hand on the scale a bit in terms of the texts chosen for discussion. While I appreciate and agree with the need for cordial Christian dialogue, cordiality itself should not be the desired end goal of such a book. What is truth? Is there truth? And if so, can we know it? This last question may betray an unredeemable Western perspective, but acknowledging God speaks acknowledges that God has a message to communicate in a way that may be understood by created beings. At the end of the day though, with all my prickliness and my pride acknowledged, I do believe this book was a helpful read for me. Would I recommend it to all? I'm not sure. Some that are struggling with their faith may find this book challenging. By the grace of God, my faith in the nature and work of God is strong and I still found certain parts of this book challenging to my conception of Scripture. But the side of me that appreciates knowing what others believe and think about our Christian faith rather liked reading this. Each of these men genuinely seemed to have a passion and love for the God of the Bible, no matter how wrong some of them may be. Each of these men genuinely wanted to communicate their understanding of the Bible and the truths it contains. I long that all people may come to the written word of God and see the glories of His salvation as communicated most fully in the person of Jesus Christ. God came to this world and was born, died and rose again. These truths are sure. We may quibble on some of our interpretations of other texts but I am still grateful to call these men brothers who confess themselves born again in the knowledge of the gospel. Last thoughts? Should you read this book? I think it's worthwhile and if anything, it's actually increased my faith (or should I say - the Spirit has increased my faith as I've considered the wonder of the God who speaks!) If you are currently struggling with your faith or understanding of who God is, this book might not be a helpful starting point. It's rather academic and at times pedantic and may discourage you more than anything. But it is a helpful aid to understanding certain evangelical perspectives on Biblical inerrancy and for that, I thank the editors and contributors. I believe this book accomplished what they set out to do and for that, I cannot fault it. I glory as I think that God has given certain people such gifts of intelligence and ease with words but I would ask that we all remember at the end of the day, knowledge is not the end. Instead, let us as little children kneel humbly before God and rest in faith in Him, knowing that He is God and He desires that we be with Him.
franklevirussell's review against another edition
4.0
Food for thought. Not as clean cut as some may think
hannahross12's review against another edition
I almost wish it was required to read a book of this style before forming and/or sharing opinions on any given topic. I'm definitely coming away with more questions than answers, but in a good way, I think! It was helpful to realize that certain views of Scripture that I've historically written off as obviously incorrect actually have more sound logic and reasoning behind them than I've ever given them (or those who hold them) credit for. If you have found yourself asking questions about how or why Christians think the Bible is trustworthy, I would recommend this book as a resource for engaging those questions. This is the first Counterpoints book that I've read, but I am eager to read more of them and would also recommend looking into the other topics covered in the series.
More...