Meaning of Inerrancy: Split from The New Testament Definition of Heresy

[themuzicman]

And neither can the inerrantist say for sure what is accurate and what is not. Oh the inerrantist can assert that all scripture is absolutely true until the cows come home if they want, but assertion is not proof nor certainty. Similarly the non-inerrantist can assert that a particular passage of scripture is absolutely true if they want, and neither would that be proof nor certainty. The inerrantist and non-inerrantist are in exactly the same boat. Both have to live in the real world which is full of uncertainty and where nothing much at all is absolutely sure or totally certain and perfectly provable, and life is about finding useful ways of navigating through our world in the absence of utter certainty.

I disagree. The assumption of inerrancy means that one claims and believes that the original is accurate. Just because you don't believe them doesn't mean that they can't assert certainty.

Michael

[Tercel]

The assumption of inerrancy means that one claims and believes that the original is accurate. Just because you don't believe them doesn't mean that they can't assert certainty.

Exactly. And a non-inerrantist can also claim and believe that the original of a given passage is accurate. Just because you don't believe them doesn't mean they can't assert certainty. Hence I take issue with your ridiculous claim that "It's just that the non-inerrantist posiition is indefensible when it comes to theology, because they cannot say for sure what is accurate and what is not."

[themuzicman]

Exactly. And a non-inerrantist can also claim and believe that the original of a given passage is accurate. Just because you don't believe them doesn't mean they can't assert certainty. Hence I take issue with your ridiculous claim that "It's just that the non-inerrantist posiition is indefensible when it comes to theology, because they cannot say for sure what is accurate and what is not."

But inerrantist have a foundation from which to build a stable theology.

the non-inerrantist cannot build a stable theology, because the foundation that he builds upon is uncertain.

Michael

[technomage]

But inerrantist have a foundation from which to build a stable theology.

the non-inerrantist cannot build a stable theology, because the foundation that he builds upon is uncertain.

That's called an "argument from the consequences." If inerrancy is false, then the foundation is false, regardless of how "stable" it may be.

[themuzicman]

That's called an "argument from the consequences." If inerrancy is false, then the foundation is false, regardless of how "stable" it may be.

I'm not trying to prove inerrancy, so there is no fallacy.

Michael

[Tercel]

But inerrantist have a foundation from which to build a stable theology.

the non-inerrantist cannot build a stable theology, because the foundation that he builds upon is uncertain.

All the inerrantist has done is push the burden of proof back a step. Look at it this way:
A non-inerrantist's certainty that any given passage in the bible is accurate and true depends on their level of proof that the passage in question is accurate and true.
An inerrantist's certainty that any given passage in the bible is accurate and true depends on their doctrine of inerrancy which in turn depends on their level of proof that the passage in question is accurate and true.

The "foundation" is only as stable as the doctrine of inerrancy itself. And the doctrine itself is only as stable as your reason for thinking every single one of the passages in the bible is true in the first place. The doctrine of inerrancy itself inevitably has to be constructed from non-inerrant evidences and proofs. In other words, introducing inerrancy adds no more certainty to the total system.

[themuzicman]

An inerrantist doesn't have to prove that any one passage is accurate and true. For the inerrantist, all of the parts are accurate and true because to them the whole is accurate and true. It's never a question.

The inerrantist doesn't have to prove anything. Just like the non-inerrantist, it's a presupposition.

Michael

[TheAnalogman]

The doctrine of inerrancy itself inevitably has to be constructed from non-inerrant evidences and proofs. In other words, introducing inerrancy adds no more certainty to the total system.

This is a very good point. Before the "enlightenment" inerrancy was a moot point. Luther and Calvin didn't think the Bible was "inerrant" for example. The basic problem with some of the modernist approaches to inerrancy is that they use what they consider a certain criteria to establish what is and what is not considered inerrant!

[technomage]

I'm not trying to prove inerrancy, so there is no fallacy.

No, you're not trying to prove it ... but the question of proof is the 800 pound gorilla in this conversation.

[themuzicman]

No, you're not trying to prove it ... but the question of proof is the 800 pound gorilla in this conversation.

Not really. Both sides have a presupposition. One says that the bible is what it claims to be, and is inerrant. The other side doubts what the bible claims to be, and doubts its inerrancy.

The real problem comes when the non-inerrantist wants to make a claim about scripture. But they don't want to admit that, so they demand that inerrantists assert authority over the bible and prove that it is inerrant.

Michael

[technomage]

Not really. Both sides have a presupposition. One says that the bible is what it claims to be, and is inerrant. The other side doubts what the bible claims to be, and doubts its inerrancy.

That's actually an error, Michael. Some errantists may start with a presupposition that the Bible is errant (a foolish presupposition, IMHO). But others--the majority of my experience--have reached that conclusion evidentially.

The real problem comes when the non-inerrantist wants to make a claim about scripture. But they don't want to admit that, so they demand that inerrantists assert authority over the bible and prove that it is inerrant.

Which places you in the uncomfortable position of trying to prove a negative.

But let me ask you this, Michael--if you were persuaded that the Bible was errant on historical or scientific issues, would that actually change your beliefs? Eexcluding the belief of Biblical inerrancy, of course.

[TheAnalogman]

Not really. Both sides have a presupposition. One says that the bible is what it claims to be, and is inerrant. The other side doubts what the bible claims to be, and doubts its inerrancy.

Michael

Where does the Bible claim to be inerrant, especially using the post enlightenment definition? What are the parameters of inerrancy? Who has decided they are inerrant in their definition of inerrancy?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Hi everyone. Thanks for your posts.

Feel free to post anything you like of course, including about my perspective if you wish, but I will not be able to post here again unfortunately. For a variety of reasons I am leaving this discussion board. The fact that this thread has been left in "unorthodox theology" is one, but there are others. Anyway I wish you all the best and many happy and fruitful hours of discussion ahead. I may see some of you on other boards perhaps.

I am geniunely sorry for anything offensive in any of my posts. That was never my intention but I certainly am human and very readily capable of sinning. But I don't wish to further argue about what is or what it not offensive and who was right about this or that or whatever. I wish you all the very best.

In Christ,

HB.

[kepha]

Dialogue on the Alleged "Perspicuous Apostolic Message" as a Proof of the Quasi-Protestantism of the Early Church (vs. James White & Eric Svendsen)

[themuzicman]

That's actually an error, Michael. Some errantists may start with a presupposition that the Bible is errant (a foolish presupposition, IMHO). But others--the majority of my experience--have reached that conclusion evidentially.

Well, most non-inerrantists dont' accept internal evidence.

Which places you in the uncomfortable position of trying to prove a negative.

Or places the onus on the person asserting the positive.

But let me ask you this, Michael--if you were persuaded that the Bible was errant on historical or scientific issues, would that actually change your beliefs? Eexcluding the belief of Biblical inerrancy, of course.

The bible isn't intended to be a historical OR scientific document, so the evidence would have to be of such a nature as to directly contradict the intent of the passage.

FOR INSTANCE, Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds. Scientifically, that's not true. But Jesus isn't making a statement of botany, here, and I doubt he wanted to get into a long biology lesson of what celery is. Thus, his statement is based upon the knowledge of His audience at the time in order to make a point about faith.

Thus, the contradiction would have to be found in the context of author/speaker/audience issues and other hermeneutical criterion,

Michael