Re: Golden Age (was Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions and a Survey)

The snarkiness is both here, and in the fact that George's first response
(on the inerrancy thread) to my claim that 2 Tim 3:16 is *not *a proof text
was to characterize said claim as "nonsense." It is not nonsense, given that
there are several historical approaches to inerrancy that recognize (as they
should) that one cannot make a crude circular argument. Also we have the
recent example that the Chicago Statement does not simply say:* "Of course
the bible is inerrant, cf. 2 Tim. 3:16. Game over, man."*

Now even if Vernon is claiming that the bible is inerrant because of the
verse in question, and it is not at all clear that he is asserting that
verse as a proof text (it seems to me he is simply using it in a "lofty view
of scripture" manner,) it would still not negate the fact that there are
serious attempts by serious theologians to affirm inerrancy. Whether they
succeed is a matter of opinion, but it mischaracterizes the scholarship that
has gone into the question by characterizing 2 Tim 3:16 as the proof text
for that position.

I have no problem with someone characterizing my argument as nonsense if it
is, in fact, demonstrated to be nonsense. Or if someone claims they proved
they are right and I am wrong if, in fact, they have done so.
David Heddle

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 8:53 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> Well, let's get our terminology clear. David objected to my statement
> that II Tim.3:16 wasn't a "standard proof text" used in support of
> the inerrancy of scripture. Opportunely, a post from another list
> participant on another thread appealed to that text in such a way & I
> pointed that out as an example of what I meant. Is that "snarkiness"?
>
> I pursue the point not because I care much if someone calls me snarky but
> because I object to the notion that showing an argument to be wrong is bad
> etiquette. Cf. C.S. Lewis's account of his first conversation with his
> tutor in which the older man concluding with "Do you not then see that you
> have no right to any opinion on the matter?" Lewis was - at least
> retrospectively - appreciative of that no-nonsense approach.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net>
> *To:* David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:19 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Golden Age (was Re: [asa] Humanity and the Fall: Questions
> and a Survey)
>
> There are those of us who mostly lurk, but then wish to attempt respectful
> exchanges (or try to apologize when we fall into 'snarkiness' ourselves).
> But such seems to be the list serve dynamic that the two most
> assertive-minded will start a shouting match while the attempted input from
> the rest gets ignored. I can understand George's impatience as he is
> presumably a long-time member here who sees the rest of us bringing up
> things that he has addressed a thousand times in other places as well as
> here. Yet, it may be patience that we need from him as we wrestle with this
> stuff or disagree on our own terms.
>
> I've lurked here for a year or two now, David, and while I've seen some of
> the exchanges get downright nasty, this forum doesn't get nearly so nasty
> (on average) as other places seem to towards Christians. It takes two to
> tango, so please don't blame George for all the snippiness. Since we all
> seem to be in a Timothy kind of mood, how about I Tim. 5:1 for a refreshing
> change? (and the verse right before it to remind us of the urgency of the
> topic in the first place.) Advice to Timothy here is good for us as well.
>
> 4:16 Pay attention to yourself, and to your teaching. Continue in these
> things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear
> you. 5:1 Don't rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father; the younger
> men as brothers;
>
> --Merv (this is not a commentary on anybody's age!)
> p.s. Ephesians 4:1 - 6 would also be apropos to these occasions.
> --Among believers anyway.
>
> David Heddle wrote:
>
> George,
>
>
> BTW, I must thank you for citing 2 Tim.3:16 here - David Heddle may
>> note it as one more attempt to use that verse to establish the inerrancy of
>> scripture. I've
>>
>> already explained why it doesn't.
>>
>>
>>
> Man, I had assumed the ASA forum would be respite from the snarkiness I
> find elsewhere on the web, but it appears that I was naive.
>
> It seems to me you *want *it (2 Tim 3:16) to be the argument for
> inerrancy, perhaps because it is such a bad argument.
>
> David 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 Sun May 11 21:20:49 2008