Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Bernie,

They have to, it seems to me, go together (inerrancy and inspiration). If
the bible is not inerrant, then first of all there is no reason to believe 2
Tim. 3:16. Secondly, if we magically knew that 2 Tim 3:16 was true, but that
the bible was (pardon the double negative) not inerrant, then only verse we
could trust is 2 Tim. 3:16.

I think in general biblical inerrancy is demonstrated by stating that 2 Tim.
3:16 sets an extremely high standard--like a teacher who claims "I am never
wrong." The statement by itself proves nothing--but every time the teacher
speaks, we measure it against the lofty claim. If an error is discovered,
the teacher falls harder than if he hadn't boasted. So it is with scripture.
We bootstrap ourselves into biblical innerancy by weighing scripture against
the standard set by 2 Tim. 3:16.

That's my take.

Of course, even with inerrancy and inspiration affirmed, there is still the
question of "what is scripture." Catholics have sacred tradition, but
Sola-Fide Protestants (that includes me) have to accept that the canon might
contain errors. Unless we assume that the Holy Spirit guided the selection
process--giving us one Sacred Tradition.

David P. Heddle
Associate Professor of Physics
Christopher Newport University, &
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
http://helives.blogspot.com

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
wrote:

> I'm arguing with a Pastor friend who supports biblical inerrancy. Here's
> a point I came up with- does it hold water?
>
>
>
> 1. To be "Bible-based," we should teach what the Bible teaches, but not
> go "beyond what is written."
> 2. The Bible claims to be 'inspired' but not 'inerrant'
> 3. Therefore, the popular Evangelical claim that "the Bible is
> inerrant" is to go "beyond what is written" and is not a Bible-based concept
>
>
> * *
>
> Therefore, for someone who wants to teach the Bible in all sincerity and
> truthfulness, should not claim more for the Bible than it claims for
> itself. This is ironic, because this statement says the more the one takes
> the Bible seriously, the less they should claim it is inerrant.
>
> * *
>
> *Back-up:*
>
> * *
>
> *For point 1:*
>
>
>
> *1 Corinthians 4:6<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=4&verse=6&version=31&context=verse>
> *
> Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your
> benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go
> beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over
> against another.
>
>
>
> *For point 2:*
>
> * *
>
> *2 Timothy 3:16<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=16&version=31&context=verse>(NIV)
> *
> All Scripture is *God-breathed* and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
> correcting and training in righteousness,
>
> * *
>
> * -- and ---*
>
> * *
>
> *2 Timothy 3:16** (KJV)*
> All scripture is given by *inspiration* of God, and is profitable for
> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
>
>
>
> *For point 3*:
>
>
>
> National Assoc. of Evangelicals:
> http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.statement_of_faith
> We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative
> Word of God.
>
>
>
> *Comments?*
>
> * *
>
> Please keep comments short, as this post is.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 9 16:37:08 2008