May I suggest that the Westminster Confession seems clear that the
inerrancy of scripture applies to faith and morals, not to other matters.
Since I have not tried to look into the record of the deliberations, I do
not know to what extent any of the divines would have insisted that the
biblical history be accurate. But I am confident that on other matters
that human beings may investigate, they agreed with Calvin. Michael, as
the one best read in this area, can you expand on this?
My recollection of the other denominational confessions and catechisms,
where they address the matter of scripture, is that they similarly
restrict its authority to faith and practice.
Dave
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 22:42:08 +0100 "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>
> It would take a long time to respond to this. On inerrancy we should
> see
> Hodge and Warfield as a better guide to its meaning than Lindsell
> and
> Morris. I am not sure that inerrancy stems from the Enlightenment
> and that
> is based by lots of theological reading from 1600 to 1900 and to
> today.
>
> We would do well to go back to Calvin who stressed that the bible
> was
> written for the rude and unlearned and that we should go elswhere
> for our
> science.
>
> Michael
>
> P.S. I prefer not to use inerrancy!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Graham Morbey" <gmorbey@wlu.ca>
> To: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Scripture and Divine Sovereignty (was
> Brainlessness...)
>
>
> > Dear Terry,
> >
> > I admire you steadfastness in consistently defending your
> conservative
> > (even fundamentalist, you say) understanding of the nature of the
> Bible.
> > It is difficult, I know, not to charge you with a certain
> arrogance in
> > stance or speech. Personally, I think it possible to "lower" your
> claims
> > about God's Word, without losing your laudable steadfastness.
> Several
> > points occur to me when reading your reply:
> >
> > 1. After citing the Westminster statement on Scripture, a
> > venerable tradition, you go on later to use a horribly slippery
> word, a
> > word shaped by the modern "battle for the bible" and shaped by a
> > particular era of Enlightenment science - "inerrant." Whose
> definition of
> > "inerrant" are you using?
> > 2. As you described your understanding (along with others, too,
> of
> > course) of God's Word - written - it occurred to me that what you
> were
> > presenting was a "fully gifted piece of writing" within a "fully
> gifted
> > creation" a la Howard Van Till.
> > 3. How do you see the relationship between the ongoing work of
> the
> > Holy Spirit and the fully gifted piece of writing, ie God's Word
> written?
> > Does the Holy Spirit open up new interpretations of things the
> bible
> > refers to while supporting it as a fully gifted piece of writing
> or does
> > the work of the Spirit add, go beyond scripture, eg., in opening
> up
> > scientific understanding of the world?
> >
> > Kind regards...
> >
> > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Terry M. Gray wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > At 2:04 PM -0700 5/30/02, Dr. Blake Nelson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Jim, you cannot be serious (nor could any conservative
> > > >theologian) in writing that "God wrote the Bible" as
> > > >if He physically put pen to paper. That is really a
> > > >huge definitional leap from the Bible consists of
> > > >God-inspired writings, written by human beings.
> > > >
> > > >More fundamentally, where does the "Bible" say that
> > > >all the books of the Bible are written by God? Most
> > > >citations regarding the trustworthiness of scripture
> > > >are absolutely inapposite to the New Testament since
> > > >the books of the New Testament were not canonical
> > > >(indeed nothing was canonical before the church
> > > >councils) until well after the last document that is
> > > >contained in the New Testament was written.
> > >
> > >
> > > Blake (and Burgy and Shuan),
> > >
> > > Here's where the doctrine of inspiration and God's sovereignty
> come
> > > together. Conservative Calvinistic theologians would argue
> that even
> > > though the human authors of scripture fully expressed their
> humanness
> > > (their personalities, their personal histories, their unique
> > > perspectives and purposes, etc.) in writing the Biblical
> documents
> > > that God who is in full Providential control of all of their
> affairs
> > > and histories, etc. sees to it that they write exactly what he
> wants.
> > > This is why we would argue for plenary, verbal, divine
> inspiration of
> > > Scripture. What Scripture says, God says! This is no dictation
> theory
> > > because the authors of scripture were acting according to
> their own
> > > wills, intellects, and purposes (full human). But the outcome
> is no
> > > different than if "physically put pen to paper." Seriously!
> > >
> > > The question of God limiting his omnipotence in order to
> provide for
> > > free will has been asserted several times on this list. I
> don't see
> > > why this is anything than a so-called "philosophical
> necessity"
> > > rather than a Biblical argument. The Bible doesn't seem to
> suggest
> > > this. The Bible puts God so fully in control so that whatever
> comes
> > > to pass is an expression of his will (secret, decretive will
> to be
> > > contrasted with his revealed moral will). The Bible also makes
> man
> > > fully responsible for his actions and credits him with free
> will. Is
> > > it not conceivable that God's control is such (in ways that
> perhaps
> > > we can't even understand) that I do exactly what I always
> freely
> > > choose to do and at the same time do what God from all
> eternity
> > > purposed me to do? This is exactly what the "venerable"
> Westminster
> > > Confession of Faith says is the teaching of scripture. I cite
> the
> > > Confession here not on the weight of its own authority, but as
> my
> > > tradition's systematic summary of the teachings of scripture.
> Fuller
> > > expositions of the Westminister Confession can provide the
> > > "proof-texts" and the Biblical argument. We can pursue that if
> you
> > > want. This argument is the heart of Warfield and Hodge's
> defense of
> > > inspiration and infallibility from the late 19th century.
> > >
> > > [Quotes from the Westminster Confession of Faith]
> > >
> > > III. I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy
> counsel
> > > of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever
> comes to
> > > pass: yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor
> is
> > > violence offered to the will of the creature; nor is the
> liberty or
> > > contingency of second causes taken away, but rather
> established.
> > >
> > > V. I. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold,
> direct,
> > > dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from
> the
> > > greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy,
> providence,
> > > according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and
> immutable
> > > counsel of his own will, the praise of the glory of his
> wisdom,
> > > power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
> > >
> > > V. II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree
> of God,
> > > the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and
> infallibly;
> > > yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out,
> according
> > > to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely,
> or
> > > contingently.
> > >
> > > V. IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite
> goodness
> > > of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it
> > > extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of
> angels
> > > and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath
> joined
> > > with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and other ordering,
> and
> > > governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy
> ends;
> > > yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the
> creature;
> > > and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither
> is nor
> > > can be the author or approver of sin.
> > >
> > > IX. I. God hath endued the will of man with that natural
> liberty,
> > > that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of
> nature,
> > > determined to good, or evil.
> > >
> > > IX. III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly
> lost all
> > > ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:
> so as,
> > > a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and
> dead in
> > > sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or
> to
> > > prepare himself thereunto.
> > >
> > > [End of Westminster Confession quotes.]
> > >
> > > To summarize: God ordained and providentially executes
> whatever
> > > happens (even the bad stuff). Those events occur necessarily
> (via
> > > "laws of nature"), contingently ("by chance"), or freely (via
> the
> > > activity of agents who have free wills). The Confession sees
> no
> > > contradiction between a certain God-determined outcome and
> free
> > > agents exercising their free will (no violence is offered to
> the will
> > > of the creature (no coercion here!)).
> > >
> > > One of the reasons that I think that Walter's programmer's
> image
> > > fails, in the end, is because the programmer does not and
> cannot
> > > control the totality of reality for the computer and the AI.
> Perhaps
> > > this is close to what Blake? was saying about immanence. There
> is no
> > > sense of the AI "living, moving, and having its being" in the
> > > programmer, the way we "live, move, and have our being" in
> God.
> > >
> > > Clark Pinnock (one of the architects of Open Theism) rejects
> the
> > > doctrine of inerrancy and plenary, verbal inspiration
> precisely
> > > because he rejects this Calvinistic understanding of the
> sovereignty
> > > of God (see his argument in the book *The Scripture
> Principle*). In
> > > Pinnock's view God doesn't have the kind of control over the
> lives,
> > > circumstances, and thoughts of men that my view describes.
> (Open
> > > Theism is simply a fuller expression of this limitation of
> God.)
> > > Consequently, scripture cannot be the words of God in the
> sense that
> > > I am describing.
> > >
> > > I simply don't have the time to fully answer Blake's second
> > > paragraph. Volumes have been written by "conservatives"
> discussing
> > > this. Here's the very short answer:
> > >
> > > The OT books are determined inspired and authoritative by
> virtue of
> > > the authoritative teachings of Jesus and the apostles. e.g. 2
> Timothy
> > > 3:16
> > > The NT books are determined inspired and authoritative by
> virtue of
> > > their authenticity and apostolicity. For an early internal
> > > recognition of apostolic writings as scripture along side the
> OT see
> > > 2 Peter 3:16 (and yes, I believe that 2 Peter was written by
> the
> > > apostle Peter and to be date prior to his death in the 60's).
> > > Canonicity is not determined by church council but by
> scripture's own
> > > self-attesting claims. (Westminster Confession of Faith, I.
> IV. The
> > > authority of the Holy Scripture...dependeth not upon the
> testimony of
> > > any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself)
> the
> > > author thereof...) The NT documents were recognized as
> scripture and
> > > used as such long before church councils that made lists of
> canonical
> > > writings. They may not have been collected together in their
> present
> > > form early, but that's not to say they were recognized or used
> as
> > > scriptural before then.
> > >
> > > Sounding very conservative here (not much difference between
> me and
> > > "the fundamentalists" on this stuff),
> > >
> > > TG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > _________________
> > > Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
> > > Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
> > > Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
> > > grayt@lamar.colostate.edu
> http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
> > > phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 04 2002 - 00:18:01 EDT