Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David O,

Why do you say my statement

"If the bible is not inerrant, then first of all there is no reason to
believe 2 Tim. 3:16"

doesn't "hold any water at all?" If 2 Tim 3:16 is true, then scripture is
inspired. Are you saying it could be inspired but not inerrant? Now that is
something that doesn't hold water, in my opinion. Thus they are tied
together. believing 2 Tom 3:16 and not believing inerrancy means believing
in inspired error. Or am I missing something?

Put another way, if there are any errors at all in scripture, then it seems
to me that 2 Tim 3:16 must also be in error, because the idea of "God
breathed" error is unthinkable.

If the bible is not inerrant, how do you decide which verses are
trustworthy? I understand my wife is not inerrant, but she tells me things
(the trash needs taking out) that are put to the test. How do you trust the
salvation message of the bible, which won't be "put to the test" in this
life?

David Heddle

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 5:07 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Though I would affirm inerrancy in some form, and wouldn't want to spend
> too much time arguing with people about it or about exactly what it means, I
> don't think statements like "If the bible is not inerrant, then first of all
> there is no reason to believe 2 Tim. 3:16" hold any water at all. My wife
> is not inerrant, but when she tells me something important, I believe her.
> This is because of the relationship of trust I have with her, not because I
> think she can never possibly err. We make all number important decisions
> every day on testimony we deem "trustworthy" or "reliable" but not
> necessarily "inerrant" -- ranging from everyday business transactions to
> giving people the death penalty.
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:36 PM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

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 17:23:39 2008