RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David Heddle said:
"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."

Who says 2 Tim. 3:16 is a "high standard"- it doesn't claim to be
inerrant but only inspired or God-breathed. I think it is your
interpretation of 2 Tim. 3:16 that "sets the high standard."

________________________________

From: David Heddle [mailto:heddle@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:36 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
Subject: 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&versi
on=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&vers
ion=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 17:19:09 2008