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

[James Peter]

How can you speak of a NT defintion of heresy and then give a definition that is decidely second, third and fourth century? hairesis (heresy) is not generally a negative word in the NT, it occurs only nine times and of those eight of them are (or at least should be) translated as 'factions' or 'sects'. The entire Christian movement is described as a hairesis twice in Acts (24:14, 28:22) as are the Pharisees, Nazarenes and Sadducces. The condemnation of haireseis in Paul (1 Corinthians 11:19. Galatians 5:20) is because 'Christianity' should be a single, unified hairesis rather than consisting of several distinct haireseis. Modern denominations would have been described as haireseis. That really is the 'New Testament Definition of Heresy' - distinct factions within a single movement (which really means that you can't have heretics who are not part of the movement).

The one exception is 2 Peter 2:1. This isn't the place to debate the origins of 2 Peter but it certainly views haireseis in very different terms. It takes the idea of a hairesis being marked by distinct beliefs or practices (usually specific interpretations of the wider group's beliefs) and applies the term to the opinions themselves that create those distinct groups (in a way that we see also in Philo). The haireseis are still not intrinsically bad though, which is why the phrase contains the qualifying gentitive apoleias.

The New Testament doesn't ever speak of Heresy in the way that the (proto) Orthodox Churches later did. Certainly there are beliefs and practices which are condemned but they aren't condemned as heresies because heresies aren't intrinsically bad... Far better to speak in positive terms of what it is necessary to do and believe in order to be part of the Church (as the NT normally does) rather than to speak in negative terms about what you must not do (which the NT rarely does). Of course there are plenty of prohibitions in the NT but they are mostly not 'in terms of 'if you do/believe X you are not part of the Church', they are things you shouldn't do if you are part of the Church but doing them does not place you outside it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I second what James Peter has to say.

Blomberg's article is evangelical claptrap. A further problem with it is that it ignores the diversity of opinion amongst NT authors i.e. what one author regards as being beyond the pale may be quite acceptable to another. It interprets the NT authors as if they were all operating from a 4th-century mindset. Individual authors blew off steam at their opponents (though they did not generally use the term heresy). That's about as much as can be said.

When are we going to get over this whole heresy mindset? It is a major contributing factor to division amongst Christians.

[dizzle]

I hate that I continually have to remind posters that this forum holds the Bible as the final authority for faith and practice. This section of the forum is not for advocating that the NT authors contradict each other etc. One does not have to be an inerrantist to post in this section but we do ask that blatantly inerrantist arguments that would contradict that basic supposition of this forum be taken to unorthodox theology.

(PS I am reporting the post for moderator oversight - as I participated in this thread, I cannot make final decisions regarding it and am speaking of forum philosophy and intention)

[James Peter, your post was fine, I was referring to Bogart. You went out of your way not to argue for errancy and I appreciate that.]

[Rupert Pupkin]

I hate that I continually have to remind posters that this forum holds the Bible as the final authority for faith and practice. This section of the forum is not for advocating that the NT authors contradict each other etc. One does not have to be an inerrantist to post in this section but we do ask that blatantly inerrantist arguments that would contradict that basic supposition of this forum be taken to unorthodox theology.

The problem here, Darth Xena, is your persistent inability to see outside the box of your own theological (specifically, hermeneutical) assumptions. I am orthodox and I do hold to inerrancy - but inerrancy of the divinely intended meaning which is not necessarily the same thing, in my opinion, as the human author's opinion or intended meaning.

You simply assume that the human author's opinion is what counts, and then on the basis of that logic dismiss others as unorthodox, without realizing that it is just that assumption which is being brought into question. You are assuming a typical evangelical hermeneutic, and then presupposing that everybody else thinks the same way. They don't!

It would be grossly unjust to censor my views as unorthodox.

[dizzle]

The problem here, Darth Xena, is your persistent inability to see outside the box of your own theological (specifically, hermeneutical) assumptions. I am orthodox and I do hold to inerrancy - but inerrancy of the divinely intended meaning which is not necessarily the same thing, in my opinion, as the human author's opinion or intended meaning.

I am not going to argue with you about what the forum means by inerrancy or at least willingness to respect inerrancy in viewing the Bible as the final authority for faith and practice. It does not encompass the argument you made in your prior post. A-Man's opening post assumes as part of its argument the coherence and noncontradiction of the Bible, and you are being a peddler of YOUR particular theological "box" by being rude enough to force something else into it IMHO. James Peter would agree with you to an extent - yet he saw and understood that this wasn't the place to do that, nor was the article intended to venture into that realm.

You simply assume that the human author's opinion is what counts, and then on the basis of that logic dismiss others as unorthodox, without realizing that it is just that assumption which is being brought into question. You are assuming a typical evangelical hermeneutic, and then presupposing that everybody else thinks the same way. They don't!

It would be grossly unjust to censor my views as unorthodox.

See above. You are assuming typical emergent claptrap. See, two can play that game? Don't be a flaming hypocrite.

"Unorthodox" here is used very loosely. No implication is made that someone is not a Christian by necessity or anything of the sort, but there is no hiding that our forum guidelines and rules are enforced and interpreted within the "evangelical claptrap" you so despise. Not even all of our moderators personally agree on this, but it is the framework of the categories here. Redefining inerrancy to something completely different than is commonly used is simply dishonest IMHO, and certainly does not bind me to say we are both inerrantists when you are pouring entirely different meanings into the word.

If you want to argue forum policy - take it to the appropriate area. If you want to argue about your post and any decisions made, PM the area moderators. I have reported your post for their attention. I cannot speak to this thread in particular as the moderation of this thread will be for a non-involved participant. I can and will speak to forum philosophy and debating that the human authors contradicted each other (i.e. one thought something was just fine and another thought it was beyond the pale) is not appropriate for this area. Feel free to argue that in more appropriate areas.

We have consistently held that arguing that the Bible has real errors and contradictions is not appropriate in this area. You were IMHO. The basis of your post was that one author could have contradicted another on what is acceptable Christian belief. You are the one riding your hobby horse by forcing that into a thread that nowhere had that on its radar screenIMHO (through the thread is for a moderator to review).

[Rupert Pupkin]

I am not going to argue with you about what the forum means by inerrancy or at least willingness to respect inerrancy in viewing the Bible as the final authority for faith and practice.

I fully accept both the inerrancy of the Bible and that it is the final authority for faith and practice. There is nothing whatsoever in the conditions for this forum that I don't agree to. I'm sorry that your bondage to a particular theological perspective prevents you from recognizing this. It remains a fact nonetheless.

You are assuming typical emergent claptrap. See, two can play that game? Don't be a flaming hypocrite.

I'm not speaking emergent claptrap, but even if I was, that wouldn't make me a hypocrite. I made a criticism of the interpretation of texts by Blomberg. If you want to argue about that or disagree with it, fine. But it is entirely unreasonable to attempt to censor discussion about it within a Christian theology forum.

It is also unreasonable, to say the least, to make public false comments about someone on a thread, and then turn around and say "don't respond publicly in the thread, take it to a PM".

We have consistently held that arguing that the Bible has real errors and contradictions is not appropriate in this area.

I don't think the Bible has real errors or contradictions in the divinely intended meaning. I'm sorry that you can't understand my non-evangelical hermeneutic, which has a long history within Christian orthodoxy, unlike your modernist evangelical hermeneutic.

[dizzle]

I have reported your posts - the moderators can handle as they choose and even (gasp) to disagree that you went outside the bounds. The place to argue forum policy is in the The Forum Formerly Known as the Locker Room or by PM. I have also left it to the moderators to evaluate your prior post. (I am not a moderator in this thread and they are free to accept your explanation as perfectly fine for this thread) They can leave or move or do as they see fit. And nice move - who ever thinks I am wrong just doesn't understand me!!!!. I know you think what you are saying is incredibly spiritual and deep, and sorry to bust your bubble, but I understand it just fine. If it makes you feel better to belligerently think everyone is just stupider than you and trapped in that poor theological box that you have been wiser to escape, have at it. I waste very little time on forum theologs with that kind of methodology.

Oh and....


Person A writing inerrant Scripture: You must believe that Jesus had an afro

Person B writing inerrant Scripture: All that afro nonsense is bunk, Jesus was bald

Divinely Intended Meaning: Can't we all just get along?

Postmodernist Twaddle: We are all trapped in our social and linguistic constructs and there is no real objective meaning, to me, it makes me think of Jesus as JJ in Good Times which is dynomite!


:rofl: Yeah. The human author can blatantly contradict each other yet some "divinely intended meaning" makes it all better. What a load of manure.

Now if you want to retract that Scripture authors can outright contradict each other, that is another matter, but it doesn't do, and sounds highly dishonest IMHO to claim that they can, but some "divinely intended meaning" hocus pocus makes it all better.

Oh and if you don't agree, I am so sorry you can't understand my hermeneutic because you are trapped in your theological bounce house. Poor thing. :wah: I HAVE A RIGHT TO POST WHERE I WANT WHAT I WANT!!!! IT'S NOT FAIR!!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHH :violin:

[Rupert Pupkin]

Gee. That's a convincing response. And one that demonstrates, indeed, that you don't understand my position, as the example you give clearly shows. That doesn't mean you are stupider than me. It just means that you haven't listened to me. It means that you're too busy in a knee-jerk defense of your own theological presuppositions to step into someone else's shoes and try to understand where they are coming from. That's your loss.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The problem here, Darth Xena, is your persistent inability to see outside the box of your own theological (specifically, hermeneutical) assumptions. I consider this to be a little pejorative. The whole idea that evangelicals can't see over the wall, but you enjoy a bird's eye view smacks of superiority.

But more to the point - I think you manifestly renounce inerrancy when you say that different NT authors wrote in conflicting ways about what is an is not beyond the pale. Your complaint that this is a knee jerk reaction will not do. You have been listened to. It's possible that the actual words you used did not line up perfect;ly with your position, but what you wrote has been understood, and as I see it, understood fairly accurately.

How can different NT authors of Scripture have expressed in writing different standards of what is and is not acceptable doctrine, and yet the divinely intended meaning speaks with an undivided voice? You have undermined inerrancy.

[dizzle]

I consider this to be a little pejorative. The whole idea that evangelicals can't see over the wall, but you enjoy a bird's eye view smacks of superiority.

But more to the point - I think you manifestly renounce inerrancy when you say that different NT authors wrote in conflicting ways about what is an is not beyond the pale. Your complaint that this is a knee jerk reaction will not do. You have been listened to. It's possible that the actual words you used did not line up perfect;ly with your position, but what you wrote has been understood, and as I see it, understood fairly accurately.

How can different NT authors of Scripture have expressed in writing different standards of what is and is not acceptable doctrine, and yet the divinely intended meaning speaks with an undivided voice? You have undermined inerrancy.

Exactly - but he prefers to think we are just too caged in some theological box that he has escaped unlike us poor saps.

[dizzle]

Gee. That's a convincing response.

Gee, that's a convincing rebuttal.

And one that demonstrates, indeed, that you don't understand my position, as the example you give clearly shows.

And yet you don't deign to let us know exactly how we have not understood. My example is a perfect parody of what you yourself exactly said in this thread, and yet you howl about not being "understood" and rant and rave about everyone's theological box, seemingly drunk with this theological fad you have inbibed and railing against those who have decided that theological novelty is generally Not a Good Thing.tm

It is pathetic you can't see your own belligerent arrogance in this discussion. And it won't do to say "neener, so have you" - the fact is that my first post to you was simply a difference of opinion from which you launched into a rant, and the rest of mine were purposefully designed to be a certain tone. You might ask why so many see it and you don't.

Wait, I know the answer. Unlike you, we are trapped in a box and can't see your theological fad for the great thing it is. Gotcha.

[themuzicman]

The problem here, Darth Xena, is your persistent inability to see outside the box of your own theological (specifically, hermeneutical) assumptions. I am orthodox and I do hold to inerrancy - but inerrancy of the divinely intended meaning which is not necessarily the same thing, in my opinion, as the human author's opinion or intended meaning.

Which, of course, is interpreted by each individual as the subjectively wish it to be interpreted, and thus there are no wrong answers.

You simply assume that the human author's opinion is what counts, and then on the basis of that logic dismiss others as unorthodox, without realizing that it is just that assumption which is being brought into question. You are assuming a typical evangelical hermeneutic, and then presupposing that everybody else thinks the same way. They don't!

I don't recall anyone assuming that a non-inerrantist thinks the same way as an inerrantist. 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.

It would be grossly unjust to censor my views as unorthodox.

:rofl:

And you are the arbiter of this?

Michael

[Tercel]

Humphrey Bogart's view strikes me as an unusual way of understanding inerrancy, yet logical in its own little way.

Isn't the idea of inerrant divine inspiration all about God's spirit causing the written words to be the very infallible words of God themselves? The natural fallibleness of humans is subsumed by the power of the inspiration of God at work. Caiaphas in the Gospel of John is depicted as uttering a prophesy at God's inspiration even though he did not willingly intend to do so. The idea that the New Testament writers were inspired by God to write the written divine words of scripture despite their own short-comings, fallibleness, differences, mistaken ideas etc seems to me to be a pretty pure and unadulterated view of divine inspiration and inerrancy. Thus even if the authors themselves, as fallible humans, are mistaken in some of their beliefs, the divine spirit at work in them as they write, transforms their words into the infallible and inerrant words of God.

It seems clear that Humphrey Bogart believes in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. Frankly, as a non-inerrantist myself I don't see why he would want to, and have little sympathy for his position. But the opposition he is receiving in this thread from inerrantists is ridiculous.

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.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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

But more to the point - I think you manifestly renounce inerrancy when you say that different NT authors wrote in conflicting ways about what is an is not beyond the pale. Your complaint that this is a knee jerk reaction will not do. You have been listened to. It's possible that the actual words you used did not line up perfect;ly with your position, but what you wrote has been understood, and as I see it, understood fairly accurately.

Not true. The argument is about the meaning of the text to which inerrancy relates, not to inerrancy itself. I hold that there are two meanings to any given text - one intended by God and one intended by the human author. This is not some postmodern invention, there are plenty of evangelicals who would agree with me on that, and I'll cite quotations from a recent essay by Alvin Plantinga (2003) (an essay, which, by the way, is must reading and hits many important nails on the head):

There is no reason to suppose the human authors of Exodus, Numbers, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Habakkuk had in mind Jesus’ triumphal entry, or his incarnation, or other events of Jesus’ life and death, or indeed anything else explicitly about Jesus. But the fact that it is God who is the principal author here makes it quite possible that what we are to learn from the text in question is something rather different from what the human author proposed to teach. (pp. 27).

… the fact that the principal author of the Bible is God himself means that one cannot always determine the meaning of a given passage by discovering what the human author had in mind (pp. 26).

Now Plantinga does not explicitly draw the further conclusion that the human author could be wrong in what he was trying to say. However, I think a careful reading of his paper will show that that is in fact implicit, or at least logically implied, by his position. All I am doing is being explicit about this. The divine meaning, and the divine meaning alone, is inerrant.

But it is also clear that since I believe that there is a real, objective, knowable divine intended meaning to each passage of scripture, and since I believe that meaning to be inerrant, that I do in fact believe in inerrancy in just as meaningful a sense as standard evangelicals. I am just more consistent in my application of my hermeneutic. Therefore my exclusion from the other thread and the inclusion of the thread here in "unorthodox theology" is manifestly unjust, and due to misunderstanding (witting or unwitting) of what I believe.

Now let me add this: I'm happy to give a biblical rationale for this theory. In fact, I did my major project for my MDiv at an evangelical denomination theological college with the Australian College of Theology on the subject and I achieved a high distinction, although they certainly disagreed with me about it. There is extremely good Biblical and historical justification for the hermeneutic. In other words, I think that in order to be Biblically faithful, you should adopt this hermeneutic, not the evangelical one. So it is evangelicals, in my opinion, who have compromised and become unbiblical, adopting modernist hermeneutical assuptions instead of biblical ones.

How can different NT authors of Scripture have expressed in writing different standards of what is and is not acceptable doctrine, and yet the divinely intended meaning speaks with an undivided voice? You have undermined inerrancy.

As noted above, I hold that there are two meanings to scripture. It is the divine meaning which determines standards of doctrine. That there can be two meanings is not my invention. In fact, as Tercel has noted, scripture explicitly teaches that prophecy can have two different meanings in Jn. 11:49-52, in which Caiaphas uttered a statement by which he meant one thing, but God spoke through him meaning quite another. This is one important text in relation to this debate. Furthermore, the idea of "unconscious prophecy" that prophets did not understand the true meaning of what they uttered was widely accepted within 1st century Judaism.

Let me just quote the evangelical philosopher Huffman who was defending the traditional evangelical view of human authorial intent, but who let this cat out of the bag:

When two different authors use the same words but with different Intentional mental states there are legitimately two different meanings, for, indeed, there are two different intentionalities, two different speech acts (although the words may be the same), two different sets of conditions of satisfaction, and, thus, two different meanings.

Now what this clearly shows, is that the very same words can have two different meaning if there are two different underlying intentional speech acts. I just propose that the words of scripture are both divine and human, and that there is a divine intended meaning which is distinct from the human intended meaning.

But repeat: the divine intended meaning is absolutely, fully inerrant.

Gee, that's a convincing rebuttal.

There was nothing to rebut.

And yet you don't deign to let us know exactly how we have not understood.

Hopefully the above will help you out. However, I am disinclined to deign to let people know how I have been misunderstood, when they have taken it upon themselves to run and dob me into the moderators in an attempt to censor discussion. I don't mind disagreement; disagree away. But I think I have some right to be annoyed with dobbing and censorship, especially when you haven't heard me out and don't know what I actually think.

the fact is that my first post to you was simply a difference of opinion

This is utter rubbish, as anyone who examines your post can see. If you had merely disagreed with me, there would be no problem. But you ran off to the moderator and tried to get me banned from the thread (read the part of your first post starting "PS"). Hence, my behaviour is reasonable. Note that I did not run to the moderator and try to get you banned. So it seems that you are not very good at understanding what "the fact is".

Which, of course, is interpreted by each individual as the subjectively wish it to be interpreted, and thus there are no wrong answers.

Yawn. Thank you for your straw man which has no resemblance whatsoever to what I believe. Furthermore, as Tercel has noted, evaluating the meaning of the human author in his historical context, about which we know so little, is extremely subjective and scholars do not agree. I would suggest that my canonical-synthetic hermeneutic leads to at least the same level of objectivity about the meaning of the text as the evangelical one. Indeed, it is only their adherence to an inherited Protestant tradition that enables evangelicals to arrive at any kind of agreement regarding the meaning of the text. I am absolutely convinced that if the early Christian church had operated with the modern evangelical hermeneutic, then Christianity as a religion would not exist.

I don't recall anyone assuming that a non-inerrantist thinks the same way as an inerrantist. 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.

The divine meaning, which is objectively determinable with a canonical-synthetic hermeneutic (not a grammatical-historical hermeneutic), is fully inerrant. So no problem. And it is my hermeneutic that was used by the authors of the NT and by the fathers, not the modern evangelical one.

Where typical evangelical inerrantists have a problem, is that they cannot cope with what is absolutely well established from historical-critical scholarship, and have to retreat into obscurantist anti-intellectualism and personal attacks on the motives of criticial scholars. So following your logic, based on their being only one meaning to the text, you end up just trading a theological problem for a historical-critical problem. The errantist prefers the theological problem to the historical-critical problem, whereas the inerrantist prefers the historical-critical problem to the theological one. I am proposing a solution to both problems, which resolves this impasse. We leave the human meaning, which is errant, to the historical-critical scholars, and the divine meaning, which is inerrant, to the theologians.

And you are the arbiter of this?

No, the truth is.

Finally, thanks for your comments Tercel. It's nice that someone is being kind to me!

I'll end with my catchcry: Just as there are two natures, divine and human, united in the one Word, Jesus; so there are two meanings, divine and human, united in the one word of scripture.

The modern evangelical approach to scripture is the hermeneutical equivalent of denying the deity of Christ.

I hope that this clears things up. It is extremely unfortunate that certain people decided to appeal to moderators and lobby for banning to "unorthodox theology", rather than just discussing their disagreements in a rational manner. I would request the moderator to either rejoin this thread back into its original position, or to move it from the "unorthodox theology" forum into the theology forum. I assume that Theonomy is the moderator, so I'll PM him.

References for quotations:

Huffman, D.S. 1995. `Philosophy of mind and hermeneutics, part 2: the intentional fallacy and the locus of an author's intent’, Theological Research Exchange Network: Conference Papers, TREN, Portland.

Plantinga, A. 2003. `Two (or more) kinds of scripture scholarship’, in `Behind’ the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. C.G. Bartholomew, C.S. Evans, M. Healy & M. Rae, Scripture and Hermeneutics Series, vol. 4, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 19-57.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Sorry - Teallaura is the moderator, not Theonomy, so I'll PM him.

[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

[A-Man]

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.

[A-Man]

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" (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/dialogue-on-alleged-perspicuous.html) 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

[themuzicman]

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?

I point directly to 2 Peter 1:16-21.

Peter first (just before this passage) says that he wants them to keep in mind what he has taught them, and apparently that is the purpose of his letter.'

Second, he establishes the authority of the apostles, because they saw the glory of Christ. There are three "exclusive we" claims in the first couple of verses.

Third, Peter then goes on to make another "exclusive we" claim that the apostles (and prophets) have the word made more certain.

Peter then goes on to say that no word of prophecy was made by the author's own (interesting word translated interpretation, but better understood as revelation), but that SCRIPTURE was written as the Holy Spirit carried the author along as they heard from God.

And just for good measure, chapter two begins with a parallel between the OT prophets and their false prophets and the NT writers and the NT false teachers that were coming.

So, there is a pretty clear case for God inspired, God generated writing of Scripture in 2 Peter.

Michael

[Ryokan]

I hate that I continually have to remind posters that this forum holds the Bible as the final authority for faith and practice. As the final authority or as A final authority? If its the, then over half the people globallywho claim to be Christian are unorthodox by TWeb standards.

[barnasha]

What is the "NT definition of heresy?"

[technomage]

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

It's kind of difficult to accept internal evidence when the external evidence is so woefully contrary to your chosen position.

But why, precisely, should I accept some form of "internal evidence" when the external evidence has already disproven the doctrine?

Or places the onus on the person asserting the positive.

True.

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.

The mustard seed is a chestnut--the only people I've seen point to the mustard seed as a "serious" error would be people I wouldn't trust to watch my cat.

But there are more serious errors. Creation (when viewed as a literal history); the Flood; several elements in the Patriarchal stories; the Exodus; the Conquest; the United Monarchy; several anonymous and pseudepigraphic books in the NT; the broken prophecy of the Olivet Discourse.

With all that against it already, how precisely will "internal evidence" matter worth a hoot?

[technomage]

What is the "NT definition of heresy?"
To be honest, there isn't one. Well, therre sort of is a definition of heresy in the NT, but it's phrased so broadly that many opposing groups have used it to their advantage.

[themuzicman]

It's kind of difficult to accept internal evidence when the external evidence is so woefully contrary to your chosen position.

In your opinion.

But why, precisely, should I accept some form of "internal evidence" when the external evidence has already disproven the doctrine?

Because it hasn't disproven anything.

The mustard seed is a chestnut--the only people I've seen point to the mustard seed as a "serious" error would be people I wouldn't trust to watch my cat.

Yes, well, people as serious as you are used to object.

But there are more serious errors. Creation (when viewed as a literal history); the Flood; several elements in the Patriarchal stories; the Exodus; the Conquest; the United Monarchy; several anonymous and pseudepigraphic books in the NT; the broken prophecy of the Olivet Discourse.

When you're looking for "errors", they are often found, whether they are there or not.

With all that against it already, how precisely will "internal evidence" matter worth a hoot?

With all that bias, what do you need evidence for?

Michael

[technomage]

In your opinion.

Because it hasn't disproven anything.

Yes, well, people as serious as you are used to object.

When you're looking for "errors", they are often found, whether they are there or not.

With all that bias, what do you need evidence for?

Michael

[/quote]

Muz, you cannot simply handwave evidence away by calling it "opinion." Well, I suppose you can, but it's rather like the ostrich who sticks his head in the sand and says "If I can't see the lion sneaking up behind me, then he can't see me either."

Do you honestly believe that I arrived at my opinion because of bias?

[themuzicman]

Not you personally, of course.

However, I've seen enough of this "evidence", and enough odd hermeneutics of scripture to create contradictions to be skeptical of such claims.

Michael

[apostoli]

As the final authority or as A final authority? If its the, then over half the people globally who claim to be Christian are unorthodox by TWeb standards.Jesus seems to suggest that Moses erred in making provision for divorce and then we have the sermon on the mount which suggests taking scripture literally ain't gonna get you to heaven..

With that in mind, it seems that at least Moses writings must be treated with caution.

A question I put to those that advocate inerrancy: Do you actually mean literalism?

[kepha]

I hate that I continually have to remind posters that this forum holds the Bible as the final authority for faith and practice.

GREAT!!! Finally I can consult a forum on the biblical immorality of in vitro fertilization, and human cloning!!!