Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David said: If the bible is not inerrant, how do you decide which verses
are trustworthy? I understand my wife is not inerrant, but she tells me
things (the trash needs taking out) that are put to the test. How do you
trust the salvation message of the bible, which won't be "put to the test"
in this life?

I respond: I would think you'd make this determination in the same way that
you do for any historical / literary source. You examine it carefully,
check it against other sources, determine which themes are central and which
are ancillary, etc. I don't really think this kind of hermeneutical process
ought to be terribly difficult or controversial. We do it with every other
historical / literary source we confront. In no other analogous context --
historical studies, civil or criminal courtrooms, even historical sciences
-- do we demand complete and absolute inerrancy of a source before we deem
it trustworty.

I also disagree strongly about the salvation message not being put to the
test in this life. If the gospel is true, than we ought to see the Holy
Spirit working in the Church, Christ transforming people's lives, and the
Father glorified in worship. We don't have to wait for heaven to see
whether the gospel is true. I believe we can see this kind of fruit of the
gospel all over the world. (Yes, before anyone pipes up, not perfectly by
any means -- *perfection* is not the proof until the eschaton.)

I don't think the issue is basic trustworthiness. The issue is *certainty*.
If the Bible is not inerrant, how can we know *for certain* that the gospel
message is true? The answer is, I think, that we can't, if "certainty"
means rational propositional certainty. The quest for rational certainty is
a demon that has haunted evangelical theology, IMHO.

So, my approach to inerrancy is somewhat more presuppositional. It is a
useful term, I think, if we mean by it that the scriptures are exactly the
written revelation God intended to provide as the norming norm of the
Church's faith, doctrine and practice. I think that sort of formulation is
line with what the Church has typically meant by the term "inerrant." If we
take it mean something more technically precise however, such that we have
to find tortured harmonizations for things like the cud-chewing rabbits in
Lev. 11, then I think we've run off the rails.

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 5:22 PM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:

> David O,
>
> Why do you say my statement
>
> "If the bible is not inerrant, then first of all there is no reason to
> believe 2 Tim. 3:16"
>
> doesn't "hold any water at all?" If 2 Tim 3:16 is true, then scripture is
> inspired. Are you saying it could be inspired but not inerrant? Now that is
> something that doesn't hold water, in my opinion. Thus they are tied
> together. believing 2 Tom 3:16 and not believing inerrancy means believing
> in inspired error. Or am I missing something?
>
> Put another way, if there are any errors at all in scripture, then it
> seems to me that 2 Tim 3:16 must also be in error, because the idea of "God
> breathed" error is unthinkable.
>
> If the bible is not inerrant, how do you decide which verses are
> trustworthy? I understand my wife is not inerrant, but she tells me things
> (the trash needs taking out) that are put to the test. How do you trust the
> salvation message of the bible, which won't be "put to the test" in this
> life?
>
> David Heddle
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 5:07 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Though I would affirm inerrancy in some form, and wouldn't want to spend
> > too much time arguing with people about it or about exactly what it means, I
> > don't think statements like "If the bible is not inerrant, then first of all
> > there is no reason to believe 2 Tim. 3:16" hold any water at all. My wife
> > is not inerrant, but when she tells me something important, I believe her.
> > This is because of the relationship of trust I have with her, not because I
> > think she can never possibly err. We make all number important decisions
> > every day on testimony we deem "trustworthy" or "reliable" but not
> > necessarily "inerrant" -- ranging from everyday business transactions to
> > giving people the death penalty.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:36 PM, David Heddle <heddle@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Dehler, Bernie <
> > > bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm arguing with a Pastor friend who supports biblical inerrancy.
> > > > Here's a point I came up with- does it hold water?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. To be "Bible-based," we should teach what the Bible
> > > > teaches, but not go "beyond what is written."
> > > > 2. The Bible claims to be 'inspired' but not 'inerrant'
> > > > 3. Therefore, the popular Evangelical claim that "the Bible is
> > > > inerrant" is to go "beyond what is written" and is not a Bible-based concept
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * *
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, for someone who wants to teach the Bible in all sincerity
> > > > and truthfulness, should not claim more for the Bible than it claims for
> > > > itself. This is ironic, because this statement says the more the one takes
> > > > the Bible seriously, the less they should claim it is inerrant.
> > > >
> > > > * *
> > > >
> > > > *Back-up:*
> > > >
> > > > * *
> > > >
> > > > *For point 1:*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *1 Corinthians 4:6<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=4&verse=6&version=31&context=verse>
> > > > *
> > > > Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for
> > > > your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do
> > > > not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over
> > > > against another.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *For point 2:*
> > > >
> > > > * *
> > > >
> > > > *2 Timothy 3:16<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=16&version=31&context=verse>(NIV)
> > > > *
> > > > All Scripture is *God-breathed* and is useful for teaching,
> > > > rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
> > > >
> > > > * *
> > > >
> > > > * -- and ---*
> > > >
> > > > * *
> > > >
> > > > *2 Timothy 3:16** (KJV)*
> > > > All scripture is given by *inspiration* of God, and is profitable
> > > > for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *For point 3*:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > National Assoc. of Evangelicals:
> > > > http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.statement_of_faith
> > > > We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible,
> > > > authoritative Word of God.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Comments?*
> > > >
> > > > * *
> > > >
> > > > Please keep comments short, as this post is.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David W. Opderbeck
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > Seton Hall University Law School
> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.