I, too, feel I should share some of my views on this topic (especially since now our RTI owner, AMR, has voiced his position clearly) and I also know some, perhaps even most, here also will disagree with me in part or in whole. AMR has been aware for some time of our differences, which we have discussed privately, differences in fact with his views on some of these matters as he has presented them here.
Let us, for the purposes of this present discussion, start forth from the definitions AMR has graciously provided for us:
#1 " Inerrancy relates to the truth contained in a statement."
Yes, AMR is undoubtedly correct. And yet, the definition is certainly, as has been all to often discovered in the so-called "inerrancy debate" of the last thirty years, not without its ambiguities. What actually constitutes error? How stringently ought "error" to be defined? There has not been a clear and generally accepted evangelical answer to those questions, and the longer the debate progressed, as it has seemed to me, the definitions have tended to both be broadened and narrowed in the minds of many of the factions.
For immediate example (not yet dealing with the other crucial word in the definition, "true"), I could join with AMR in his assertion "I claim that when all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences," right up to "physical sciences." I do not believe the Scriptures are inerrant in the realm of the physical sciences. If they had been made so, they would have been utterly unintelligible to the readers and culture out of which they came and to which they were first addressed! I also believe the Scriptures include errors in the area of geography and history -- none of which impinge upon the "truth" (as I choose to understand "truth," of the Scriptures).
I affirm that Scriptures are inerrant [i]in all they intend to teach[/i]. I do not believe their intent was to teach the physical sciences, nor the natural sciences, nor geography, nor history, nor mathmatics nor literary generic style -- and a whole lot more.
As applied to the Scriptures I believe "truth" must be sufficiently broadly defined as to not be restricted nor limited to "bare factuality," but must instead include and essentially pertain to "ideal and fundamental reality" apart from and transcending perceived experience. Perhaps a sense of what I am saying here can be perceived by the encounter regarding "truth" between Jesus and Pilate (John 18:37c,d-38a). "Truth" is far more and deeper than "fact-event" and often does not relate directly to "fact-event"at all (witness the manifold literary genre found in the Scriptures!). Jesus was Truth [i]factually[/i] staring Pilate in the face -- and Pilate missed it entirely! "Truth" was more and deeper than His actual presence!
Now, as a Christian of Reformed Faith persuasion I adhere to "Sola Scriptura." The Scriptures never assert anywhere that they are inerrant. Some declare that inerrancy is implicit in inspiration -- I rather think it is more correct that they are inferring it from a pre-concieved and particular understanding of the mechanics of verbal inspiration. Furthermore, none of the Reformed Symbols to which I subscribe (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort with Rejection of Errors) confess inerrancy. The Belgic Confession speaks of "holy men of God [who] spoke being moved by the Holy Spirit" (BC Art 3)without suggesting specifically the precise means by which it was done. Apparently, from the nature of the Scripture texts themselves it was by different means to different writers at different times and unto the production of a plethora of different literary genre and in such a way as no verbal dictation (as was once affirmed as the hallmark of orthodoxy!) was involved and the differences of the human writers by no means impaired and yet all was the Word of God! The Holy Scripture "ccontains the will of God completely and "everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it" (BC Art 7). The "Truth" it affirms is, at base, the "Truth of God" and the production is an "infallible rule" (BC Art 7). I affirm no more -- and certainly no less!
So, in sum, I am more concerned regarding the inerrancy of all the Scriptures [i]intend to teach[/i] than I am in its individual statements or words apart fom their context and the idea/ideas they convey. I am equaly concerned about infallibility, as was the Belgic Confession, and I affirm the infallibility of Scripture. AMR is correct, I beliieve, when he asserts:
#3 "Infallibility relates to the truth of any of the teaching of the Scriptures."
I would only add the word "intended," so as to read "the intended teaching of the Scriptures."
#2 "Inspiration relates to the Scriptures' wording," as AMR suggests, and indeed again he is correct. I affirm that inspiration extends to the words of the text. But we part company when we speak of autographa. Such do not exist and I believe insistence that they were inerrant flies in the face of the only evidences available to us -- the evidence of the texts we do have as we now possess them. To give only a couple of examples -- there are many more one coud suggest. Have you ever tried to trace out a viable harmony of all the gospel witnesses from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recording the events surrounding the Death and Resurrection of the Messiah? If you havent, you should. Detail inconsistencies are, to me, obvious. Harmonizings I have seen I deem artificial -- usually done, so it seems, as special pleadings to defend a particular presupposition of inerrancy. But is the sacrificail death of Christ or his bodily resurrection in doubt? Of course not!
I confess that I had held that very inerrancy presupposition when I came to the texts -- I could no longer in honesty hold to it after their exhaustive examination. The same is true regarding Matthew's and Luke's use of the prior Markan material -- and the differences they show in their common use of a source they had in common -- usually called "Q."
And just what were the autographa? The oral sources? Mark's finally redacted text? The material provided by Matthew alone? by Luke alone? the "Q" material shared? Or would it only be the final product they produced? And, in any event, this is all speculative and a matter of faith confession regarding a non-extant set of texts. I think the inerrancy of Scripture relating to the autogapha is simply a statemrnt of faith without Scripture to support it!
Upon sober reflection I am surprised that adherents of the Reformed Faith adhere to it. As I have already affirmed, I subscribe to "Sola Scriptura," referencing as the Church has always referenced, not hypothetical autographs but the very best actual manuscripts available to believers in any era of the Church's history! This is the only Scripture I know! I have spent a good deal of my life immersed in those texts, as have many others, and I conclude that what we have is eminently sufficient for my faith and practice -- and what has been present throughout the Church's history has always been thus sufficient.!
Do I want the best text possible? You bet I do! I have delved into text critical matters for a number of years now and am thoroughly convinced, as is AMR, that the methodology that has brought us UBS4/NA27 is the best available today -- and its product the ESV is an outstanding version for this Forum (I would have preferred and voted for the NASB, but I am not disappointed with what has been chosen). It may be that the Byzantine text has been unduly slighted in the text critical process, but even as textual criticism has come a long way since Westcott and Hort it, along with most sciences, must not stand still but continue forward to a better future -- perhaps even a closer study of the Byzntine manuscripts will be a part of that future.
AMR well says: "The infallibility of the Scriptures is not in doubt by any evangelical Christian." But he is not correct if he means all Evangelical Christians accept the inerrrancy of the autographs -- at least not as some define inerrancy. And yet I firmly believe that "none of the Bible's essential messages have been lost" -- not from any of the texts as we possess them.
I know many of you, perhaps even most, will not agree with my posting. So be it. It is an honest declaration of what I believe. So as thus it stands.
No response is required Patrick. My post was just a statement of position and not intended to evoke discussion. I felt I owed it to you and the group so that I would not be seen as somehow under false pretenses after you made your statement of position. And it was also, in a sense, directed to you in the sense of explicating my being among the number in ETS who had supported Bob Gundry and opposed the broadened interpretation of inerrancy that led to his expulsion. I was not in ETS of course, but I sided with that minority.
A fairly large number of ETS members agreed with Bob Gundry (who is every bit a Biblical exegete of the caliber of a Gordon Fee), but since they haven't published there hasn't been a movement to expel any of them. It has all turned into a game of definitions of what is or counts as an error and what are the autographa (for example, does it include all the sources used by the Biblical writers or only the finally redacted text). So, using their narrowed definitions of inerrancy and their broadened definition of autographa they subscribe to a position that those with broadened definition of inerrancy and narrowed definition of autographa oppose and, up to now, there has been a continuing unspoken truce. I doubt there will ever be another "Gundry case." Frankly, I dont think the same spirit of fervor and vindictiveness any longer exists. I certainly hope not.
The Scriptures never assert anywhere that they are inerrant.
The "Holy Scriptures" are the revealed word of God.
How can the word of God be less than as perfect as their
Author?
I disagree with your claim.
See II Samuel 22:31, Psalm 18:30
Quote:
Some declare that inerrancy is implicit in inspiration
Yep.
Quote:
Furthermore, none of the Reformed Symbols to which I subscribe (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort with Rejection of Errors) confess inerrancy.
Indeed.
But the WCF does declare Scripture as being inerrant (WCF Chapter 1, paragraphs IV, V - X)
In your own words posted to me, I understand you reject the WCF; so your heterodox view does not surprise me.
Quote:
I affirm that inspiration extends to the words of the text. But we part company when we speak of autographa. Such do not exist and I believe insistence that they were inerrant flies in the face of the only evidences available to us -- the evidence of the texts we do have as we now possess them.
Thus, you reveal your conceptions of the Holy Word of God issue from the premises of "higher criticism" and the "enlightenment" theories made acceptable in the latter 1800's.
Quote:
Upon sober reflection I am surprised that adherents of the Reformed Faith adhere to it.
Then you are surpised by faith.
The faith that is bestowed by the Holy Spirit of God; who convinces and convicts sinner of the truths of God. (John 16:13)
Quote:
As I have already affirmed, I subscribe to "Sola Scriptura," referencing as the Church has always referenced, not hypothetical autographs but the very best actual manuscripts available to believers in any era of the Church's history!
You simply reveal you have no idea the spiritual principle of "Solo Scriptura."
You claim it, but do not teach it.
Sola Scriptura consists of Godly revelation alone . . .not Scriptural dissection, alone!
Quote:
AMR well says: "The infallibility of the Scriptures is not in doubt by any evangelical Christian." But he is not correct if he means all Evangelical Christians accept the inerrrancy of the autographs -- at least not as some define inerrancy.
Skip the "evangelical" designation . . .
AMR rightly claims along with any other regenerated Christian, that the "infallibilty of the Scriptures is not in doubt".
Quote:
And yet I firmly believe that "none of the Bible's essential messages have been lost" -- not from any of the texts as we possess them.
This is correct.
Quote:
I know many of you, perhaps even most, will not agree with my posting.
I appreciate your response to my posting and shall respond piece by piece.
My claim that the Scriptures never assert anywhere that they are inerrant still stands and you are unable to refute it. Your response does not refute it. Inerrancy is not mentioned in anything you cite.
Yours is not an implication -- it is an inference. You might like to look up the difference in any standard dictionary between "imply" and "infer" so you will not continue to misuse them.
You are correct I do not confess the Westminster Standards and have never declared that I did.
I challenge you to describe my premises regarding what you call "higher criticism." Unless you are some sort of mind reader you have no idea what I believe regarding "higher criticism." Neither do you know what I believe about "enlightenment theories." I urge you to be careful of what you accuse me about without proof. Slander is not befitting a Christian! Stick to questions and disagreements about what I say or post and cease impugning my beliefs which I have not posted and about which you have no evidence. What I post is fair game -- what you may infer about me, or project upon me, is not!
I am indeed surprised by a Reformed Christians faith as placed in what Scriptures do not teach! Others may be comfortable believing what is not taught in Scripture -- I am not.
You say "Sola Scriptura consists of Godly revelation alone." We agree. You imply I indulge in "Scriptural disection." Either make good your inference from my exegesis or terminate such comments. To make inference about my handling of Scripture and calling it "disecting" is slander without proof. Slander does not comport with Christian character.
If you read my words carefully you will discover I agree with AMR "that the 'infallibilty of the Scriptures is not in doubt.'" You need to read my posts more carefully so you can be critical of what I say rather than what I do not say!
I know you do not agree with most of my postings. That is acceptable to me. When I agree with you I say so. When I don't I often let it go by without comment. However, I have never slandered you and I never will. But I will warn you, if you continue to slander me as you have here in the posting I have just responded to, by continuing unfounded accusation regarding "disecting Scripture" and regarding a "higher criticism" motivated by 19th century Enlightenment -- factors you know absolutely nothing about and of which you have no evidence, I will continue to point out that unChristian behavior publicly.
The WCF does not mention "inerrancy" in any of the sections you suggested. You may well infer inerrancy from what is stated, but no mention is made in the WCF about "inerrancy" per se -- no more than do the Scriptures themselves (though there too it may be drawn as inference). Again I suggest that you read texts more precisely and more in keeping with what is therein stated.
But I will warn you, if you continue to slander me as you have here in the posting I have just responded to, by continuing unfounded accusation regarding "disecting Scripture" and regarding a "higher criticism" motivated by 19th century Enlightenment -- factors you know absolutely nothing about and of which you have no evidence, I will continue to point out that unChristian behavior publicly.
In Christ
Lyncx
Whether you know it or not, your "scientific" hermeneutics are the result of higher criticism. I will say (without motive to slander) that you exegete the Scriptures according a scientific intellect, rather than dependance upon faith and the Holy Spirit of God.
It is not true that I do not know about such things (which accusation could easily amount to slander against my person and intelligence, if we both want to go there!)
I refuse to accept that my responses to your posts are "unChristian."
I am the one who holds to the inerrancy of the Word of God, and the WCF which defines the Reformed faith. I am the one who believes that God revealed propositional truths in the Holy Scriptures. I am the one who believes it is the Holy Spirit of God alone who can convince and convict sinners of divine truth, according to His Sovereign will.
You have no basis or right to declare my behavior or postings to be "unChristian."
You are a scholar; but not any better a human than me; thus you do not qualify to be my Judge.
You may well have no motive to slander, but slander you do nonetheless. You claim my hermeneutics are "scientific" and the results of "higher criticism". You say my exegesis is according to the scientific and intellect rather than dependence upon faith and the Holy Spirit. That may be your opinion -- but to state it without proof is to slander me. Why? Simply because it is not true. It is falsehood pure and simple.
You say you know about such things. Prove it! Demonstrate that you are well informed as to what "higher criticism" really is, what its elements are, why each element of higher criticism is based on 19th century Enliightenment, why these elements are improper to exegesis. Then show wherein I have used any of those elements and how.
By the way, WCF defines the Reformed Faith for some -- The Three Forms of Unity define it for others. You certainly hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. I do not disagree with that. I also believe God revealed propositional truths in Scriptures -- but the entirety of Scripture is by no means made up of propositional truths! Furthermore we agree that it is the Holy Spirit of God Who alone can convince and convict sinners of divine truth according to His Sovereign will.
I do continue on the basis of your slander of me to declare your behavior shown by your postings to be unChristian. It is called "bearing false witness against your neighbor."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Interesting RTI Poll
Who is "the seed" of the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15
