Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

George,

Sorry but this is nonsense. I Tim.3:16 is used as such a proof text all the
> time & on this thread Gordon Brown appealed to Tit.1:2. Note that I didn't
> say that these texts actually prove what they're used to prove (my point was
> that they don't) & I didn't say that I was pointing out all the things wrong
> with using them in that way.
>

Is that how you debate? Simply declare arguments as nonsense? Nice.

You are in fact wrong. No serious argument about inerrancy starts with 2 Tim
3:16, for that would clearly result in a circular argument. The inerrancy of
the Koran and the Book of Mormon could also be established likewise. No,
arguments for the inerrancy of scripture are a wee bit more sophisticated.
There are classic arguments for the inerrancy of scripture, which you are
free to disagree with, but you are simply wrong in your claim that those who
affirm inerrancy cite 2 Tim 3:16 as a proof text. You will not, for example,
that the exposition of the Chicago statement does not consist of "scripture
is inerrant because of 2 Tim 3:16."

As for the Chicago Statement, I am not asking if you or your church affirm
it, that's your right. I am asking if you think that the luminaries who did
affirm it suffer from looking back wistfully to some Golden Age. Or did I
misunderstand you?

David Heddle

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 3:30 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com>
> *To:* D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> *Cc:* bernie.dehler@intel.com ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 10, 2008 3:04 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy
>
> George,
>
>> It strikes me that much of what is said about biblical inerrancy is of a
>> piece with the hankering for a golden age that I spoke of in another
>> thread. People insist that God had to inspire a book that meets their
>> standard of perfection, just as they think that God had to create a world
>> that measures up to their ideas of what a good world would be.
>>
> >I don't think I actually understand what that paragraph means. I think you
> are just giving you personal opinion.
>
> >So do you think all the signatories of the Chicago Statement on Biblical
> Inerrancy were just hankering for some Golden Age? People like Packer,
> Nicole, Boice, >Schaffer, Sproul, Gersnter?
>
> I think my wording makes it very clear that I was expressing my opinion
> about one of the motivations (in many cases an unconscious one) of
> inerrantists. I fail to see though why that should make it hard for you to
> understand what I was saying.
>
> If you will read carefully what I said you'll see that I made no claim to
> read the minds & hearts of all who subscribe to inerrancy. My immediate
> reference was to some of the participants on this list. OTOH I have not,
> nor has the church body of which I am a member, subscribed to the Chicago
> Statement, nor do my ordination vows require such a subscription.
>
>
>
>> Most seriously though, the insistence on biblical inerrancy on all
>> matters, including astronomy, geography, history &c, even more than belief
>> in a golden age, pays no attention to the character of the God revealed in
>> Jesus Christ, a God who is willing to limit himself to the human condition
>> in order to accomplish his purposes.
>>
> >But that's just another assertion. You have not provided one micron of
> support. I could just as easily reply with an equally unsupported assertion
> such as "Those >who jettison inerrancy make a liar out of God." That's your
> opinion, which is fine, but you've offered nothing to back it up.
>
> I suggest you point out the ways in which the position on inerrancy which
> you defend depends upon or reflects the character of God revealed in Jesus
> Christ. (Yes, I know appeals can be made to sayings of Jesus to try to show
> that he "taught inerrancy." Besides the dubious character of those specific
> arguments, they are just concealed versions of the original claim that God
> had to give us an inerrant book.) OTOH I've already pointed out that
> "error" cannot automatically be equated with "lie."
>
> >Again, is it your position that the men I mentioned above "pay no
> attention to the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ?"
>
> As I've pointed out, the Chicago Statement carries no confessional weight
> for me. & the question isn't whether those specific men believe, teach &
> confess the character of God revealed in Christ but whether their
> understanding of inerrancy reflects it. & the same is true of everyone
> else. I am not challenging what anyone believes about Christ but ideas
> about scripture which do not reflect belief about & in him. The notion that
> the Bible, & not Christ, is the primary form of the Word of God is one
> common expression of such inadequacy.
>
> >And your standard proof texts are not proof texts at all—so listing them
> as such s a strawman argument. Since 2 Tim 3:16 is not immune from
> suspicion if scripture >contains errors, it surely cannot be a proof text
> for inerrancy.
>
> Sorry but this is nonsense. I Tim.3:16 is used as such a proof text all
> the time & on this thread Gordon Brown appealed to Tit.1:2. Note that I
> didn't say that these texts actually prove what they're used to prove (my
> point was that they don't) & I didn't say that I was pointing out all the
> things wrong with using them in that way.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com>
> *To:* D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> *Cc:* bernie.dehler@intel.com ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 10, 2008 3:04 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy
>
> George,
>
>
>
>> It strikes me that much of what is said about biblical inerrancy is of a
>> piece with the hankering for a golden age that I spoke of in another
>> thread. People insist that God had to inspire a book that meets their
>> standard of perfection, just as they think that God had to create a world
>> that measures up to their ideas of what a good world would be.
>>
>
>
> I don't think I actually understand what that paragraph means. I think you
> are just giving you personal opinion.
>
> So do you think all the signatories of the Chicago Statement on Biblical
> Inerrancy were just hankering for some Golden Age? People like Packer,
> Nicole, Boice, Schaffer, Sproul, Gersnter?
>
> I think my wording makes it very clear that I was expressing my opinion
> about one of the motivations (in many cases an unconscious one) of
> inerrantists. I fail to see though why that should make it hard for you to
> understand what I was saying.
>
> If you will read carefully what I said you'll see that I made no claim to
> read the minds & hearts of all who subscribe to inerrancy. My immediate
> reference was to some of the participants on this list. OTOH I have not,
> nor has the church body of which I am a member, subscribed to the Chicago
> Statement, nor do my ordination vows
>
>

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 17:13:30 2008