Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

D. F. Siemens, Jr.

Sorry I misspelled your name.

> I have to conclude that you have done the same to give yourself a private
> version of the Westminster Confession.
>

You are as gracious as those with whom I regularly argue on Pharygnula.

> The Westminster divines were indebted to Calvin, who corrected the
> scriptures on astronomical matters.
>

It is true--*Calvin* was fallible. He was, for example, a YEC. He also
affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. I would (perhaps in error) view
both of these as proof of Calvin's fallibility. In fact, he did not correct
any astronomical error that is not explicable otherwise.

> The "infallible truth" is clearly connected to salvation.
>

Of course it is, and I didn't say otherwise. What I said was that it was not
*limited* to matters of salvation. The divines wrote nothing in the WCF
that can be parsed as "scripture is inerrant only in matters related to
salvation." Its *sufficiency* was so limited, and its *purpose* was so
focused, but limits to its infallibility are not to be found in the WCF.

David Heddle

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:14 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
wrote:

> Since you cannot even copy my name correctly, I have to conclude that you
> have done the same to give yourself a private version of the Westminster
> Confession. My copy includes, in the first section:
> 2. [after naming the Bible books]All which are given by inspiration of God,
> to be the rule of faith and life.
> 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high
> and reverent esteem [for] [of] the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of
> the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the
> consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory
> to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the
> many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are
> arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God;
> yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible
> truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy
> Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
> 6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own
> glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in
> Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from
> Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new
> revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge
> the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving
> understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and [that] there
> are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of
> the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered
> by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general
> rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
>
> The "infallible truth" is clearly connected to salvation. The Westminster
> divines were indebted to Calvin, who corrected the scriptures on
> astronomical matters. I understand that you cannot read it that way, for you
> have the ERV. When explicit errors are pointed out, your version imagines
> that they don't count. But the fact is that II Timothy 3:16 and the
> Westminster Confession are a clear pair in stating what the truth of
> scripture is.
> Dave (ASA)
>
>
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:04:41 -0400 "David Heddle" <heddle@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> D.F. Simmons,
>
> You must be reading the WC quite differently. I see no place where it
> limits the scope of biblical infallibility. Of course, scripture says very
> little about science, and not a great deal about history or archeology, but
> the WC does not teach that scripture, when it deviates from soteriology, is
> no longer inerrant. Perhaps you could point out where the divines stated
> that scripture is possibly unreliable when it describes science or history.
>
> And this has nothing to do with Henry Morris, I'm sure that everyone here
> understands that inerrancy is not synonymous with literality. I am not a YEC
> but I affirm the inerrancy of scripture.
>
> You wrote that you accept the purpose of 2 Tim 3:16 without reservation.
> Why? Why is the purpose spelled out in 2 Tim 3:16 one of the parts of
> scripture whose reliability is beyond dispute? If scripture contains error,
> why do you trust that particular snippet?
>
>
>
>

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 20:10:31 2008