Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David Heddle wrote:
> The Reformers, from my reading, certainly held the same view of
> inerrancy as I hold. I would agree completely with what the
> Westminster Confession teaches on the matter.
>
> Just a question for those who care to answer: how can the bible be
> fallible and at the same time be inspired?
Quite simply. The same way anything else can be inspired and yet still
fallible. Surely you don't hold that the Scriptures are the only
inspired pieces of literature to ever grace paper or papyrus!

Don't get me wrong --I'm not suggesting that the inspiration of
Scripture is *merely* the same as all other inspired writing. I'm just
noting the obvious existence of counterexamples to your implied notion
that "Only infallible writings or authors are eligible to be considered
inspired." We all have read many works by many authors that I am
convinced were inspired -- even Christianly so. And not all of them
were non-fiction. I have found profound statements about life even in
fiction works I could point to, none of which is infallible.

But, no doubt this is word play where you and I are applying slightly
different definitions to "inspired" ---you using an elevated sense of
that word to describe something that would include only Scriptures while
I in the above paragraph was using the more common meaning. And I don't
disagree with you that Scriptures (even our modern translations of them)
are to be set apart as holy (but not idolatrously so). And I also hear
and agree with your objection about the errors of always assuming
ancient ignorance. One can't seriously study Scripture and then
simultaneously cling to the delusion that these ancients didn't observe
and study the world around them in much the same way that we now label
"modern science". (I love Job 28 as an example of geology, or even
parts of Luke 12 giving obvious approving nods to meteorology followed
by the stinging spiritual application.)

Regarding all the "errors" that you dispute ----I'll use the quotes for
your benefit -- I've played that detective game for too much of my
Bible reading life. In fact this reflex still haunts my reading, a
lurking attitude of always wanting to check this against that, see if
this discrepancy can be reconciled, using whatever technicalities of
language may be available to try and disarm some discrepancy (or now
that I dissent from this technical fixation --I nevertheless still do
it, only now to hoard a kind of ammunition for exchanges just such as
this!) I have to wrest my mind away from this practice before I can
begin to encounter Scripture at its own higher level.

Of all the incredible things that the technicality-fixated among us can
find, it isn't the small discrepancies that give me so much pause, nor
the HUGE and central claims --such as the resurrection of a dead body
(swallowing a camel as Lewis referred to it). While those do
occasionally give challenge to the wavering faith, it is the
incredibility of parts of the human drama which, if we accept only as
journalistic dictation, that give me pause. I mean --how many of you
if you were disciples who had just seen Jesus feed 5000 men + women,
children with five loaves and two fishes, could turn around a mere
chapter later (I don't care ---insert months of gap in there if you
like) and ask Jesus innocently "Where can we get so many loaves in a
desolate place to satisfy such a great multitude? (4000 this time)".
I mean, come on! The disciples (and we too) can all be block heads
sometimes. But who in their right mind wouldn't have been jumping up
and down at that point and saying "do it again, Jesus! do it again!"
Normally, these disciples weren't exactly gun-shy about showing off
Jesus' power! It's narratives like this that make me think later
recorders weren't so much concerned with quotational precision as they
were giving parallel narratives, perhaps to make a spiritual point.
Yes, the factuality is important, in its place; and there are places
(such as the resurrection event) where factuality is indispensable.
But to treat the entirety of Scripture as one giant journalistic
dictation is to introduce unnecessary stumbling blocks in front of those
who engage in the then dangerous activity of studying Scripture too
closely.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 10 09:27:24 2008