This last week has been an eye opening time for me. It seems like I have been discovering particular beliefs about teachers I had a lot of respect for that have largely disappointed me. First, I ran across some pretty inflamatory comments from Ergun Caner, who I had a lot of respect for. He spoke in chapel when I was in chapel and is the Dean at Liberty. And here I thought Liberty was making some good strides. But he comes out and makes his anti-Calvinism very clear, calling it a virus. He went on to blast Calvinists for not caring about evangelism, which isn’t exactly a new accusation, but is also one that is usually blown out of proportion.
Then I was doing some reading for my NTI class and was reading about the Two-Source Theory of the synoptic Gospels. Basically what this says is that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source in writing their Gospels (imagine Matthew using Mark to write down how he got saved). Almost all of Mark is found in those two and many NT scholars want to say that Matthew and Luke were dependent upon Mark. Then they say that there is this infamous ‘Q’ text that they also relied on, where they don’t agree with Mark. This is completely made up and a creation of their own imagination. It has done to the point to where there is a concordance on ‘Q’ and a ‘Theology of Q’ even though no Q text actually exists. I could write on this more later if you guys have an interest in learning more about it, but this is enough to show you that they are tearing away at the inerrancy of Scripture.
But they don’t see it that way. They see it that way. They see it as completely acceptable that God could have inspired the writers in this way, but as you investigate this in a deeper way, you see how insulting this view really is. The sad thing is, that this view is the majority view today. A quick look at history clearly shows that NO church father thought this. In fact, there is almost a unanimous agreement that Matthew wrote his Gospel first. It wasn’t until Source and Historical Criticism spawned around the 18th century that these views started to be tossed around.
Sure, maybe these people don’t think this is attacking inerrancy, but I shutter to think what it will do to future generations who are raised to think its ok to think that the Gospels aren’t completely true. Its ok to think that Matthew was actually the author of the Sermon on the Mount, not Jesus. Its ok to think that Jesus’ words as he sent out the disciples weren’t actually from that time, but words from a larger span of time. They even talk about how Mark is more ‘archaic’ than the others and Matthew and Luke are improvements on it. Explain to me how one can even think that you can improve upon the Word of God. This may jive with the way that you think, but if you raise the next generation of the church with this state of mind, where are they going to run with it. Next thing you know, radical groups like ‘The Jesus Seminar’, who took it upon themselves to find the real words of Christ in the Gospels, will be much more common.
The men who I discovered believe in this Two-Source theory are D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Lean Morris, all leading NT scholars today.
These discoveries and revelations have led me to remind myself that it is not in these particular men that I have put my trust, but in Christ alone. It is my personal responsibility to study all things out, to invest myself in the Word, and to discern all things.