Jamin Hübner is a former friend and student of James White, as well as a former contributor to Alpha and Omega Ministries’ blog. In 2020, he wrote a book, Deconstructing Evangelism. There are some arguments against inerrancy of the original autographs and Sola Scriptura.
With more study, bigger and bigger
holes appeared in what was supposed to be a seamless fabric of unquestionable
truths. I was taught and encouraged to teach students in “Intro to Bible” that
the Apocrypha simply isn’t “in the Bible,” and that no “biblical author” ever
cites it “on the same level.” But this, too, was just a defensive caricature.
The biblical authors didn’t really have a sense of canon like we do—who did in
fact, cite and/or reference from the Apocryphal works precisely on the same
level as our “scripture” [35]. 2 Timothy 3:16 was supposed to amount to verbal
plenary inspiration, but in actuality was an extremely mild statement, defining “God-breathed”
as “useful,” etc. And in constructing all of our constructions about the Bible,
why wouldn’t we “let the text speak for itself,” instead of forcing a 19th-20th
century bibliology into two verses in the NT regarding the whole topic of inspiration?
[36] Can we really determine what a book is before even reading it as a
whole ? Presuppositional apologetics has its contributions against
Modernism (e.g., exposing prejudices against religion). But this whole idea of
being right in various opinions, just by definition, is no better than the JW
that comes to my door and simply says “because God said so,” which we all know
is functionally synonymous with “because I say so” [37]. In any case,
the credibility of conservative biblicism continued to crumble in front of the
most basic questions.
[35] In particular, see Lee Martin
McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols (New York: T&T
Clark, 2017), who was taken Roger Beckwith et al. to task on this for about a
quarter century now. Similarly, see the extensive table on Paul’s quotations
and use of apocrypha in Timothy Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon (The
Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013).
[36] And it did no good to “adopt
Jesus’ own perspective on the Bible,” as that line too was wrought with
countless problems, anachronisms, and readings of verses that were novel and/or
incredulous.
[37] Sometimes during this period
a JWitness came to my door not long after I had watched the film, The Island,
and it left a profound impact on me. I realized, to be fair and to truly “know,”
I had to genuinely believe and live like I could be that person, stuck
in a self-referring world, a “cult,” or whatever, and not know it. It was an
uncomfortable, higher level of skepticism that, while I wouldn’t obsess over
(as many post-fundamentalists and post-Christians do), couldn’t ignore, either.
(Jamin Andreas Hübner, Deconstructing
Evangelicalism: A Letter to a Friend and a Professor’s Guide to Escaping
Fundamentalist Christianity [Rapids City, N.Dak.: Hills Publishing Group,
2020], 74-75)
In response to John Piper’s A Peculiar Glory, we read that
Piper’s books contains
the more typical errors and misleading
arguments characteristic of this shamelessly fundamentalist perspective, such
as the idea that:
1. Christianity in general should
see (and has always seen) the canon in terms of binary categories
(inspired/non-inspired) when in fact the canon has always had a common core
with blurred edges—including today throughout global Christianity.
2. There is a single autographic
text, as if biblical authors sat down and wrote on version of a book that was
then transmitted through the ages, when in fact this concept can apply neither
to most biblical writings because of their developmental origination (e.g., Psalms,
Proverbs, and others are compilations that underwent adaptation, revision, integration,
expansion, etc. over time), nor to many NT writings (where authors often keep a
copy for themselves, revised another for a particular congregation, sized with a
copy down to fit a scroll, etc.), so that speaking of “the original Bible”
makes as much sense as saying “the original internet” or “the original Wikipedia.”
3. 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches verbal
plenary inspiration of the original autographs, when in fact (a) the text is
extremely mild in its claims, defining “God-breathed” in terms of making one “wise
for salvation” and equipping the person of God for “every good work”, and (b) “scripture”
likely refers to the Septuagint (a translation) and not to the Hebrew text at
all.
4. “Verbal plenary inspiration” is
simply the default Protestant (even Christian) bibliology, when in fact
there are entire Christian and evangelical denominations that do not hold this
view, and Reformed theologians such as Herman Bavinck who intentionally distanced
themselves from this rigid perspective (touted by his American friend B. B.
Warfield) in favor of “organic inspiration” or “genetic-synthetic” bibliology.
5. The idea that Jude wasn’t
quoting 1 Enoch (Jude 14-15) as “scripture” or “authoritatively,” when there’s
no reason to believe (except preconceived bias) that he is doing anything
different.
In addition to these and other
elementary problems, there are the typical unanswered questions that readers
are bound to have, such as:
1. If verbal inspiration and words—as
opposed to the messages and meaning of the Bible—are so important, why do Jesus
and the early church feel free to create their own unique readings that
comprise a mixture of the LXX and Hebrew text? (E.g., Mark 7:6-7; Luke 4:17-18;
John 1:23; Acts 15:16-18; Rom 2:24; 9:33; 10:20-21; 14:11; Heb 10:5-7, etc.)
2. If verbal plenary inspiration
and words—as opposed to the message and meaning of the Bible—are so important,
why it is continually repeated to being significant that textual variation
doesn’t affect essential Christian doctrines? This is significant for Christians
who don’t adhere to verbal plenary inspiration, not for those who do.
(Piper seems unaware of the possibility that words/wording only matter to the
extent that they affect meaning, as opposed to having independent divine value
regardless of their functioning in sentences and semantics).
3. Why is it significant that the
New Testament writers don’t quote from and allude to Apocryphal writings when
(a) they actually do (E.g. Sir 4:1 in Mark 20:19 alongside Deut 5 and Ex 20;
Sir 17:26 in 2 Tim 2:19-20 alongside Num 16; Wis 14:22-31 in Rom 1:24-32; Wis
2:23-24 in Rom 5:12-21; Ascension of Isaiah 11:34 or Elijah Apocalypse in 1 Cor
2:9; 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14; 1 Enoch in 2 Pet 2:4 and 3:6; Wis 7:25-26 in Heb
1:3) and (b) they won’t quote from many other canonical books as well (e.g.,
Judges, Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Song of Solomon, Lamentations)?
(Ibid., 146-48)
With respect to Bavinck, Hübner quotes the following on ibid., 147
n. 7:
[The Bible is] a living whole, not
abstract but organic. It is not given to use simply to parrot its exact words
and phrases but so that we, drawing from the entire organism of Scripture, as
free and thoughtful children, think God’s thoughts after him . . . Taking the
text of Scripture seriously as the Word of God does mean that we do not read it
atomistically, as though each word or letter by itself has its own divine
meaning. Words are included in thoughts and vowels in words . . . not every
text or passage or book is equally close to the circle of faith’s center. Not
all of the books of the Bible are of equal value.” Herman Bavinck, Reformed
Dogmatics, trans. John Vriend, abridged (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 17,
106.
