Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary thread: Tyrel vs Paprika on inerrancy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Carrikature is right.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
      The topic will be: "Are there good reasons, on balance, to believe that the Scriptures teach themselves to be inerrant
      Originally posted by Tyrel View Post
      Thus, what I would invite Paprika to do is to give us comparably good arguments, from Scripture, to believe that Scripture teaches ‘errancy.’ Unless and until he does that, it seems to me that the reasons, however poor, for affirming inerrancy, suffice to establish that it is more reasonable than not to believe that Scripture teaches inerrancy. [/FONT]

      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      My thanks to Tyrel for his thought-provoking rebuttal. It is, I think, best to clarify my aim: to show that there is insufficient Scriptural evidence for inerrancy. That would suffice to support the stance that the Scriptures do not self-attest as inerrant. I do not, as Tyrel has suggested, have to argue for errancy to make my case.
      The topic is not about whether the Bible teaches inerrancy vs. errancy, but about interpretations of inerrancy vs. other interpretations. The Bible doesn't need to teach that it has errors or is capable of error in order to call into question whether inerrancy is the best interpretation. That would certainly counter the argument of innerancy, but I don't think such an argument can be made. Rather, if Paprika shows that there are reasons to believe an alternative interpretation that are just as good or better, then he has met the criteria for the debate.
      "Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it." - Edward Feser

      Comment


      • #18
        Being a fundamentalist Christian in regards to holy scripture, and a sectarian view point being baptist (non-Roman Catholic). Stating my bias. I find our friend Tyrel has made, I think, an excellent case for inerrancy of holy scripture.

        Our friend Paprika, it seems, tries to make difficult the matter. I find his reasoning difficult to follow, and I fail to see any compelling reasons not to believe in inerrancy from his arguments thus far.

        Of those here who understand the points of argument Paprika is posing against inerrancy. Feel free to simplify.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Soyeong View Post
          The topic is not about whether the Bible teaches inerrancy vs. errancy, but about interpretations of inerrancy vs. other interpretations. The Bible doesn't need to teach that it has errors or is capable of error in order to call into question whether inerrancy is the best interpretation. That would certainly counter the argument of innerancy, but I don't think such an argument can be made. Rather, if Paprika shows that there are reasons to believe an alternative interpretation that are just as good or better, then he has met the criteria for the debate.
          That is not what I understood.
          . . . to clarify my aim: to show that there is insufficient Scriptural evidence for inerrancy.
          In which any evidence for inerrancy from scriptures cited to be holy scriptures refutes his argument.

          The fact the readers of holy scripture are not inerrant. And that they can in fact come up with alternative interpretations, cannot rationally refute the fact there are scriptures in the regard to be holy scriptures which make claims to be God's words and that they are pure.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            The bolded seems an unwarranted extrapolation, and you've as much as shown that in the following statement with your accurate assessment of blasphemy. More importantly, you'd need to show why Paul would bother saying "I, not the Lord" unless he didn't consider his words to be the very words of God. It makes much more sense to think that Paul is offering his own addition without any claim to equal authority.
            Or you could take it to mean that Paul is simply saying that Jesus never said anything about the additions Paul mentions in the passage while he was walking the earth. In other words, it could be read as Paul expanding on Jesus' teachings.

            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            Indeed, it's very clear in context that Paul is very careful in delineating his authority, and he does so with humility. Chapter 7 verse 6 has him stating " This I say by way of concession, not of command" with him going on to say that he wishes all were like him, he recognizes that every person has their own gift(s). Most translations have verse 12 as "I and not the Lord", while the NIRV goes so far as to say "It is from me, not a direct command from the Lord."
            Nothing here prevents Paul from thinking that the words he writes are on par with, or more correctly come from God Himself, and therefore have equality on par with words coming directly from Jesus' own mouth.


            As for Paul mentioning certain things as a concession, rather than as a command, I don't really see the relevance. According to Jesus God allowed the Jews to divorce under certain circumstances as a concession to their hardness of heart, but that didn't change the fact that it was God's word all the same.

            Not to mention that Paul in 1 Cor 7:40 makes the claim that he too has the Spirit of God, which in the context of the discussion surely means more than the fact that every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. It reads to me as a claim of special authority to ensure his readers that even if these teachings are not coming from Jesus' mouth directly they should not be taken any less seriously.
            Last edited by JonathanL; 03-02-2014, 01:08 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              Or you could take it to mean that Paul is simply saying that Jesus never said anything about the additions Paul mentions in the passage while he was walking the earth. In other words, it could be read as Paul expanding on Jesus' teachings.
              I do take it to mean just that. That doesn't help establish a claim to equal authority.


              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              Nothing here prevents Paul from thinking that the words he writes are on par with, or more correctly come from God Himself, and therefore have equality on par with words coming directly from Jesus' own mouth.
              If he does think so, it's not immediately obvious in the text. Even if granted that nothing prevents his thinking such, you'd still have to show that he actually does. Simply leaving the possibility open is insufficient.


              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              As for Paul mentioning certain things as a concession, rather than as a command, I don't really see the relevance. According to Jesus God allowed the Jews to divorce under certain circumstances as a concession to their hardness of heart, but that didn't change the fact that it was God's word all the same.
              Its purpose was merely to establish the delineation of authority. Paul was not giving commands. This is important, especially because commands are part and parcel of the conception of inerrancy, and the fundamental reason why it matters. If there are the words of God, they are to be followed. If they are not, they are merely (wise) guidelines. That's a significant difference.


              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              Not to mention that Paul in 1 Cor 7:40 makes the claim that he too has the Spirit of God, which in the context of the discussion surely means more than the fact that every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. It reads to me as a claim of special authority to ensure his readers that even if these teachings are not coming from Jesus' mouth directly they should not be taken any less seriously.
              There's a difference between special authority and equal authority, though. A pastor has special authority but not equal authority. In fact, the very point of ex cathedra is to help establish those differences. Claiming special authority in this case is not nearly enough to establish that "Paul is drawing a distinction between the words of "the Lord" [i.e. Jesus] and Paul's own words, with the point being that the two sources should be considered on par with respect to authority" as Rberman claimed.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #22
                Carrikature is right, again!
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  Its purpose was merely to establish the delineation of authority. Paul was not giving commands. This is important, especially because commands are part and parcel of the conception of inerrancy, and the fundamental reason why it matters. If there are the words of God, they are to be followed. If they are not, they are merely (wise) guidelines. That's a significant difference.
                  Can I take that to imply that you think that God (I'm speaking hypothetically here, I know you don't believe He exists) is incapable of providing "wise guidelines", or at the very least that any "wise guidelines" that God provides are not the words of God, even though they come directly from God Himself?


                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  There's a difference between special authority and equal authority, though. A pastor has special authority but not equal authority. In fact, the very point of ex cathedra is to help establish those differences. Claiming special authority in this case is not nearly enough to establish that "Paul is drawing a distinction between the words of "the Lord" [i.e. Jesus] and Paul's own words, with the point being that the two sources should be considered on par with respect to authority" as Rberman claimed.
                  Equal authority is a subset of special authority. But the point here is that Paul makes the claim that he "too has the Spirit of God" (altered the ESV version to keep it grammatically correct). If Paul was simply concerned with claiming special authority and not equal authority I find it hard to understand why he would invoke such a powerful authority as the Spirit of God (which is basically the same as God Himself) to give credence to his own words.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    The bolded seems an unwarranted extrapolation, and you've as much as shown that in the following statement with your accurate assessment of blasphemy. More importantly, you'd need to show why Paul would bother saying "I, not the Lord" unless he didn't consider his words to be the very words of God.
                    Jesus does the same with, "You have heard it said... but I say to you..." Jesus is not claiming that his words are less important than the OT. Rather, he's building on what they already know, and claiming equal authority to teach them something new. So too with Paul here.

                    Most translations have verse 12 as "I and not the Lord", while the NIRV goes so far as to say "It is from me, not a direct command from the Lord."
                    NIRV goes beyond the text in assuming Paul is not making a command too. "I and not the Lord" is more accurate, for reasons discussed above.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                      ... NIRV goes beyond the text in assuming Paul is not making a command too. "I and not the Lord" is more accurate, for reasons discussed above.
                      The NIRV does not assume Paul is not making a command. Read the text:

                      12 I also have something to say to everyone else. It is from me, not a direct command from the Lord. Suppose a brother has a wife who is not a believer. If she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And suppose a woman has a husband who is not a believer. If he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 The unbelieving husband has been made holy through his wife. The unbelieving wife has been made holy through her believing husband. If that were not the case, your children would not be pure and clean. But as it is, they are holy.

                      15 If the unbeliever leaves, let that person go. In that case, a believing man or woman does not have to stay married.

                      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...7&version=NIRV

                      Some disagree about the force of the 3rd person imperative in Greek, depending upon context, but the NIRV is very clear about its interpretation. It translates Paul's words as a very strong command, just not one from the Lord.
                      Last edited by robrecht; 03-02-2014, 04:05 PM.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        ... Equal authority is a subset of special authority. ...
                        What does this mean? If equal authority is equal to God's authority, how could God's authority be a subset of anything?
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          Can I take that to imply that you think that God (I'm speaking hypothetically here, I know you don't believe He exists) is incapable of providing "wise guidelines", or at the very least that any "wise guidelines" that God provides are not the words of God, even though they come directly from God Himself?
                          Not necessarily, no. I don't see how God, speaking directly, ever gives wise guidelines. That is, anything He 'suggests' would be taken with such a degree of authority that they would effectively be identical to commands. It's the equivalent of a teacher 'suggesting' that a certain topic would be good to study for the test. Not only that, but the concept of guidelines includes a degree of leeway that doesn't seem to fit with God's nature. For God to effectively say "you don't have to do this" would seem to unnecessarily muddy the issue.

                          However, I think it's entirely possible that God could provide wise guidelines through other means, in particular by imparting knowledge and wisdom to those He has placed in leadership positions. In practice, those leaders seek God's direction as an integral part of forming doctrine and policy while recognizing their own limits as fallible humans. There may be moments where God speaks clearly to those who ask, but other times enough ambiguity exists that any such doctrines are espoused as wise guidelines only.

                          In fact, it might be the case that God always provides direct commands to these leaders, but that their humility causes them to portray the commands as wise guidelines instead. That may be what is in effect for Paul, but I know of no way for us to know which are God's commands and which are Paul's especially when Paul himself does not intend them to be taken as commands. More importantly, I haven't seen such a belief unequivocally supported by the text.


                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          Equal authority is a subset of special authority. But the point here is that Paul makes the claim that he "too has the Spirit of God" (altered the ESV version to keep it grammatically correct). If Paul was simply concerned with claiming special authority and not equal authority I find it hard to understand why he would invoke such a powerful authority as the Spirit of God (which is basically the same as God Himself) to give credence to his own words.
                          It is upon the Spirit of God that Paul rests his special authority, and that is a sufficient reason for his invocation. It's important to consider the full content (not to mention context) of Verse 40. The ESV has "39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God." To paraphrase, "this is my opinion, but I think it holds some extra weight."

                          As you say, equal authority [with God] is a subset of special authority, but the two are not identical.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                            Jesus does the same with, "You have heard it said... but I say to you..." Jesus is not claiming that his words are less important than the OT. Rather, he's building on what they already know, and claiming equal authority to teach them something new. So too with Paul here.
                            These aren't comparable statements, though. Jesus is clarifying the commandments, and his authority is implicit. He never lays claim to God's authority, and that's at least one reason why the Pharisees (et.al.) would have had such a problem with his teachings. For anyone to speak as Jesus did without that authority would be blasphemy. This is completely different from Paul's statements. He too recognizes the danger of blasphemy, and so he's extremely careful to point out which is which. You can really see this if you compare the two.

                            Source: Matthew 5:17-48

                            27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.[j] 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.[k] 31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Source: 1 Corinthians 7:8-16

                            8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9 But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

                            10 To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

                            12 To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer[a] has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you.[b] 16 Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Yes, Paul expands on Jesus' teachings, but there's no indication he's doing so on equal authority.


                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            What does this mean? If equal authority is equal to God's authority, how could God's authority be a subset of anything?
                            Authority > Special Authority > Equal [to God] Authority. Equal authority to God is indeed special authority, but it's possible to be special without being equal.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                              Authority > Special Authority > Equal [to God] Authority. Equal authority to God is indeed special authority, but it's possible to be special without being equal.
                              Oh, OK, that makes sense now. I'm just not accustomed to speaking of God within any human categories because I do not believe we can define God, as Thomas would say, he is not within any genus, hence cannot be defined as a species within a genus.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                These aren't comparable statements, though. Jesus is clarifying the commandments, and his authority is implicit. He never lays claim to God's authority, and that's at least one reason why the Pharisees (et.al.) would have had such a problem with his teachings. For anyone to speak as Jesus did without that authority would be blasphemy. This is completely different from Paul's statements. He too recognizes the danger of blasphemy, and so he's extremely careful to point out which is which. You can really see this if you compare the two.

                                Source: Matthew 5:17-48

                                27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell. 31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                Source: 1 Corinthians 7:8-16

                                8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9 But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

                                10 To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

                                12 To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you. 16 Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                Yes, Paul expands on Jesus' teachings, but there's no indication he's doing so on equal authority. Authority > Special Authority > Equal [to God] Authority. Equal authority to God is indeed special authority, but it's possible to be special without being equal.
                                Looking at the whole of Jesus' teachings, it seems clear that when it's said that Jesus "taught as one who had authority" (Matt 7:29), the authority in question is divine in origin rather than human. As you say, that's partly why the Pharisees accused him of blasphemy. Jesus said that anyone who ignored his words would face disaster (Matt 7:24-27). It was his way or the highway; no other authority on earth was equal. So yes, Jesus does indeed lay claim to God's authority. That's why the wrath of God abides on anyone who does not obey the Son (John 3:36).

                                Does Paul claim that same sort of power? He does, regularly. Even while admitting his weakness of speech in 1 Cor 2:1-5, Paul reminds the Corinthians that his "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" before them should make them heed his message. When Paul calls himself Christ's ambassador (2 Cor 5:20), he's saying that his own words should be treated as Christ's words. They are to "regard [him], as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God." (1 Cor 4:1) When he speaks, he reveals God's will and must be heeded. At the end of 1 Cor 4, Paul threatens, if necessary, to return to Corinth and exercise fatherly discipline upon any who don't toe his line. The only time I can think of that Paul states an opinion that's not meant to be binding is in 1 Cor 7:6-7. "Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." But his "I, not the Lord" is not such a concession. It's simply identifying that Paul is speaking of his own authority, as Christ's ambassador and the steward of God's mysteries, rather than repeating a previously known saying of Christ.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X