Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Joe Tandy,
That's true, all you have to do is demonstrate an error in scripture. You
are confident that you could--but I don't share your confidence. And you
cannot be responsible for my fall from grace--because of course we Reformed
types don't believe such a thing is possible.

I actually meant to write "Sola Scriptura" not "Sola Fide" that was a
mistake. The point is, believing scripture is inerrant is quite different
from believing the canon is inerrant. There was debate regarding Hebrews,
James, Jude, Revelation, 3 John, 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, and
maybe a few others. Its possible a book was added that shouldn't have been,
or (less likely it seems) was inadvertently omitted. The disntinction is
sometimes put this way: The Catholic Church, can self-consistently claim an
infallible collection of infallible books, while we Protestants can only
self-consistently claim a fallible collection of infallible books.

David Heddle

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:

> David,
>
>
>
> The statement "If an error is discovered, the teacher falls harder than if
> he hadn't boasted" is indeed the problem with extrapolating literal
> inerrancy to scripture from more modest statements from the Bible itself, as
> Bernie is pointing out. All I have to do to destroy your faith, then, is to
> point out some obvious errors, and (by your argument) you have to disbelieve
> the whole Bible. I could do this, but I wouldn't want to be responsible for
> your fall from grace. Or, one has to seriously reinterpret what is meant by
> the passages in question, or backtrack on what is meant by scriptural
> inerrancy, which are the usual means of dodging the obvious problems.
>
>
>
> Which is where your later statement doesn't make much sense to me:
> "Sola-Fide Protestants (that includes me) have to accept that the canon
> might contain errors." How can scripture be inerrant, but the canon might
> have errors?
>
>
>
> This argument has been made before, but let me state it with an explicit
> example. The heavens declare the glory of God (or more generally, creation
> is described as "good" by God.) Does that mean that if we find errors in
> nature, that God was not so glorious or not such a good creator after all,
> or that God is not perfect? Or is God able to speak through and witness His
> glory through aspects of creation that have all appearance of being
> imperfect?
>
>
>
> In the same way, if scripture is received by, written by, and transmitted
> through fallible humans, and if (hypothetically speaking) errors were
> discovered in written scripture, was it God's fault or man's? And if this
> were the case, would it still be possible for God to show through scripture
> sufficient truth of Christ for us to put our trust in Him, and to be led to
> the truth of all things by His living Spirit? I realize these questions may
> be unsettling to those who place trust in the infallible written form of the
> Word.
>
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Heddle
> *Sent:* Friday, May 09, 2008 3:36 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
>
>

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 22:17:40 2008