What Else Is Wrong With (N.T.) Wright?

A few posts ago I mentioned somethings that are dangerous from the beliefs and teachings of N.T. Wright. There is more. He seems to shy away from the belief in the infallibility of Scripture or he is reluctant to affirm it. To be fair he does believe it is authoritative but that creates a dilemma for him. If we should not describe the Holy Writ as infallible or inerrant then on what basis can it be said to be the Word of God and authoritative? Why should I or anyone else take anything he says seriously on his views of justification, judgment or the kingdom if he says they come from Scripture but then refuses to affirm that the Bible is inerrant?

Jamin Hubner at aomin.org does a good job of exposing Wright's hesitancy of using "infallible" or "inerrant" when describing the Bible. Here is a quote:

Debates about whether God's Word contains lies is a distraction from the "real point"? Doesn't the truthfulness of God's Word kind of determine what it's "there for"? I mean, if the Bible contains all kinds of lies and falsehoods, it's probably not there to instruct the Christian. I mean, shouldn't Christian living be based upon truth?

 Wright's comment is so common in today's world of mainstream evangelical thought that it's almost repulsive. We're not talking about label wars and a "debate about words." We're talking about whether God's Word is a reflection of God Himself. If it's not, then why do we call it God's Word? If it is, then it must be true in everything that it communicates.

If God is lying to people then I'd like to know (because then I probably wouldn't be a Christian). If Adam and Eve are fictional characters, that would be good to know (because then Luke's genealogies and Paul's theology is completely unreliable). And if Jesus' resurrection was only symbolic and spiritual, and not historical, I would also like to know.

What I want to know is how the Bible can enable God's people to do anything honoring to God when we ignore the debate over whether what the Bible says is true. How is a Christian "enable[d]" when he witnesses to a person who wants to know if the resurrection is really a historical event and whether the story of Paul in Acts really took place? It kind of puts a damper on the proclamation of the gospel when people are saying "Adam and Eve didn't really exist, everything in Genesis is a myth - and the gospels continually contradict themselves" and we have no idea how to respond. What does NT Wright suggest we do, just smile and say "well, I'm not here to debate over these qualities of Scripture, I'm just hear to tell you what's in the Word"?

And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pe 1:19–21).

Go over and read the whole article found here. Good stuff.
Soli Deo Goria!

For His Glory,
Fernando