The following is a partial transcript that Annoyed Pinoy typed up of William Lane Craig's podcast entitled "What Is Inerrancy?"
Harris: The debate often centers on Inerrancy with skeptics of the Christian faith and those who are considering [it]...I've seen it go round for years and years just on Inerrancy and that often detracts from the *person* of Christ.
Craig: Yeah, I think that's just a huge mistake, Kevin. Because now, what you're trying to make the focus of your evangelism is *Inerrancy* rather than *Christ*...as you say. It's *Christ* that is the center of the Gospel. And so, *He* ought to be the stumbling stone. Not the doctrine of Inerrancy. Inerrancy is an in-house debate for someone who is already a Christian.
Harris: Okay, alright.
Craig: It's an in-house argument about what corollaries are there to the concept of inspiration.
Harris: Now that is very important because, again, you can go off on a rabbit trail for years with a person on Inerrancy. And, again, to detract you from [what Kevin says is garbled but he seems to say "the central truths of the gospel."]
Craig: It would actually...here's the...here's the serious [thing]...it would keep people from salvation. Which is just horrible. If people have to jump through the hoops of Biblical Inerrancy in order to become a Christian...you will actually prevent people from coming to know Christ. By forcing the unbeliever to embrace this belief in order to be saved."
www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/What_is_Inerrancy_.mp3
1. It sounds very pious to say, in the abstract, that we should focus on Christ rather than inerrancy, but what does that really mean? We don’t have Jesus apart from Scripture. We don’t have independent access to the words and deeds of Jesus.
So who are people coming to? Do we have the words of Jesus?
Jesus doesn’t speak to us directly. Rather, he speaks through others. We have reported words of Jesus.
Did Jesus really say, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,” or is that one of those “in-house” debates?
Do we have the deeds of Jesus? We have reported deeds of Jesus. Jesus reported statement to Mary is embedded in a story. But did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead? Or is that one of those “in-house” debates?
The words and deeds of Jesus go together. But if the record of his words and deeds is errant, then maybe Jesus didn’t raise Lazarus from the dead. Then maybe Jesus didn’t say, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.”
2. Did Jesus really appear to Paul on the Damascus road, or is that one of those “in-house” debates? Did God really call Abraham out of Ur, and make a covenant with Abraham–to bless all nations? Did Isaiah really see into the future? Did the Apostle John really see into heaven? Are these merely “in-house” debates? Are these peripheral to the Christian faith?
3. Is it appropriate to tell God, “Take a little piece of paper and write down in two or three sentences the bare minimum I need to believe to avoid going to hell. Then shut up! That’s all I want to hear!”
What kind of attitude is that? It’s not as if we’re only obligated to believe some “saving” truths. Rather, we’re obligated to believe whatever God tells us.
And we should believe what he says because of who he is. That’s the main thing. To believe the word of God because we believe the God of the word. For if we didn’t believe in God, there would be no reason to believe in his word.
That’s the problem with this grudging, nominal approach. If people can’t bring themselves to believe whatever God tells them, then they don’t really believe in God.
We trust what he says because we trust him. We take God at his word because he is truthful and trustworthy.
If you don’t have that, what do you have? What’s left?
Notice how Craig treats the word of God like a yoke. We mustn’t burden unbelievers by “forcing” them to take God at his word.
What a thankless attitude! Shouldn’t we view the word of God as a blessing rather than a burden? A light in the darkness? Something that frees us, not shackles us? An object of gratitude rather than resentment?
The word of God is a priceless gift to lost sinners. How can Craig possibly say that having to believe the word of God is a hindrance to salvation? What a perverse thing to say! You might as well say fresh water is hazardous to a man stranded in the desert.
The word of God is the word of our Father in heaven. The word of God is the word of our Good Shepherd. Words of light and life. Healing words. Words which guide us and guard us on the journey home. What could be more precious? More essential to our wellbeing?
I think Craig would agree with you that there is a necessary assumption of Scripture's truthfulness in regard to the person and work of Jesus Christ. However, the defense of inerrancy, within the evangelical movement, is typically related to the details of history or science and whether these details have to be without error at all points. I think that's the sort of "in-house" debate that Craig has in mind.
ReplyDeleteAs one of the elders of my church who was present and accounted-for during the SBC's resurgence in the 80s likes to say: The Scripture is inspired in spots, but you have to be inspired to spot the spots.
ReplyDeleteIt kills me that smart guys like WLC and Glenn Peoples don't get this.
From what I can tell, the Bible requires me to believe that God's written revelation (itself), which includes inspired human testimony is true. But ordinarily a testimony can be true even if it is fallible (liable to error) and even if it actually does contain errors. I don't see where Scripture requires me to believe that it is without error in every respect. I'm aware of most of the major alleged Bible contradictions, discrepancies and errors (what I call "CDE"s for short) and SO FAR, in my limited experience and knowledge, none of them are clearly unresolvable. Most of them are frivolous like those in the "SAB". I still defend inerrancy when dealing with atheists because 1. I believe it by faith and 2. for the sake of the argument, even though I tell them that the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on inerrancy. However, it does bother me when non-Christians accuse me of presenting "just so" (ad hoc) resolutions because of how seemingly implausible my answers are (answers that I usually get from Evangelical sources).
ReplyDeleteMy usual response to that charge is:
1. none have been shown to be a TRUE CDE (internal contradiction, or external historical/scientific discrepancy or error),
2. it may be that God has inspired Scripture to have apparent contradictions in order to confound the proud and arrogant (whom Scripture says God mocks, resists, and opposes; 1Pet. 5:5; Job 12:16). Cf. also the Pascal quotes I posted here http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/12/irrelevance-of-evidence-to-atheism.html
So, the burden is still on them to provide such an undeniable CDE. But what if they provide one that I nor anyone else can resolve. Or if the resolution seems ad hoc even to me? What can I do in such a situation? That's why for the past 2 years or so I've been hesitant to assert inerrancy as central to the Christian faith because:
1. I don't want it to keep people from becoming Christians, and
2. in order to prevent professing Christians (myself included) from leaving the faith because of a CDE he/she can't either resolve or because he can't accept as plausible the standard answers usually given.
I want inerrancy to be true. I believe by faith it is true. But I'm no longer convinced that God requires Christians to believe absolutely everything in Scripture is true.
Steve, in a previous post I said, "Though, I do suspect that inerrancy is true." And you said, "That's pretty weak.",
ReplyDeleteThe reason I said that is this. Theoretically, a claimed divine revelation (e.g. the Qur'an) could be shown to be errant if just one error could be demonstrated. However, proving the inerrancy of a divine revelation (e.g. the Bible) is nearly impossible to prove this side of Judgment Day since that would require being able to prove absolutely everything the Bible teaches. Just as it's easier to prove there *is* natural gold buried in Alaska than proving there's *no* natural gold buried in Alaska. That's why, it seems to me, inerrancy can only be a doctrine of faith, not a proveable fact. I can announce it by faith, but I cannot demonstrate it as fact. Though, I suppose one can argue for it transcendentally (e.g. TAG), but I'm not smart enough to argue that way. So, I usually settle for arguing abductively.
One thing I do when someone claims that there are CDEs in the Bible is to challenge them to present their best example. That way, if it can be shown that such an example is easily resolved, then it can open up the possibility in their mind that all the other lesser alleged CDEs might be false. I do it that way because as sinners, they will naturally want to present a small or medium sized CDE lest their greatest reasons for rejecting the claims of the Bible be swept away and their conscience is awakened.
Steve you said...
Many of the stock objections to inerrancy can't be reduced to text-critical issues. Some can, but not all.
Those are the kind I'm talking about. But at the very least, one could always, in desperation (yet logically) say that a problem that we can't solve at present could always be due to a scribal error. Even then, there are some issues that are interwined with text-critical issues.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. My ears are open for anyone's comments/corrections.
KEVIN DAVIS SAID:
ReplyDelete"I think Craig would agree with you that there is a necessary assumption of Scripture's truthfulness in regard to the person and work of Jesus Christ. However, the defense of inerrancy, within the evangelical movement, is typically related to the details of history or science and whether these details have to be without error at all points. I think that's the sort of 'in-house' debate that Craig has in mind."
i) That's not a necessary assumption in his minimal-facts methodology.
ii) What Jesus actually said and did is very much a part of the inerrancy debate.
iii) It's also sheer arbitrariness to quarantine the truth of Scripture regarding the person and work of Christ from the truth (or lack thereof) of Scripture about everything else to which it speaks.
I had the following conversation with Professor Daniel B. Wallace awhile back:
ReplyDeleteWallace: “When this happens, Christ becomes the handmaiden to the Bible rather than the other way around.”
Me: "Strawman."
Wallace: "Good argument, Truth. Can you elaborate?"
Me: "Dear Professor Wallace,
A helpful way to navigate the argument in the beginning is to define terms. In this particular instance the key term is the word “liberal”. How do you define the term? It may or may not be the same way that an Inerrantist defines the term.
Furthermore, your statement of “When this happens, Christ becomes the handmaiden to the Bible rather than the other way around” smacks of the accusation that inerrantists are practicing bibliolatry. The implied accusation is what I was responding to. Hence, the one word reply of “strawman”.
If you didn’t mean to make that assertion, and that I read more into your statement than was warranted, then I humbly retract and apologize.
Pax."
Wallace: "Truth, you certainly did read more into my words than I meant. I, too, am an inerrantist. So, the implication that inerrantists define liberal differently than I do is incorrect. You might say ‘most inerrantists,’ but certainly not speak in absolute terms. I’ve already mentioned how I define a liberal. How do you define a liberal?
Me: "DBW (if I may abbreviate),
Please point to me where you define a liberal. As for me the term liberal depends on the context. In this instance I had a recent internet conversation with someone about CSBI Inerrancy. He said that anyone who holds to CSBI inerrancy is a “fundamentalist”. Fine with me, I said. I just need to understand how you define terms. Based on the foundation that he set I then replied that since those who believe in inerrancy are fundamentalists, then those who don’t believe in inerrancy should be known as liberals.
And I and many other inerrantists don’t make Jesus Christ the handmaiden to the Bible when conversing with “liberals”.
(cont.)
Wallace: "D’oh! Sorry, that was in something else I wrote this week, not this blog post. Here’s how I define a theological liberal: someone who does not believe in the bodily resurrection of the theanthropic person.. Inerrancy is hardly the litmus test of orthodoxy, of whether one is an evangelical or liberal. A liberal is defined by his denial of the essentials of the Christian faith, that which one must believe to be saved. As much as I embrace inerrancy, I know that the Bible did not die on the cross for me.."
ReplyDeleteMe: "Dan, you may have an uncommon and overly narrow definition of a theological liberal. The Wikipedia definition is not bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity#Liberal_Christian_beliefs
Excerpt: “The word liberal in liberal Christianity denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture without any preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma.”
Wallace: "Wikipedia?
Me: "Your rhetoric is not improving. To wit:
#1. “As much as I embrace inerrancy, I know that the Bible did not die on the cross for me.”
Tell me of an inerrantist that you know who believes that the Bible died on the cross for him or her.
#2. “Wikipedia?”
Instead of a diversionary move to the source, how about acknowledging (or challenging) the substance of the entry therein?
Your question “Wikipedia?” comes across as a sneering ad hominem.
Wallace: "Truth, I think you’re reading too much into my words again. Wikipedia is hardly a first-rate source, and certainly not the most valid one to use to define theological liberal or evangelical. For example, I would consider the Institute for Biblical Research to be more valid for defining what an evangelical is. In order to be a member of IBR, one has to have an earned PhD in either Old Testament or New Testament studies, be sponsored by two members, be voted into the organization by the 3/4 of the members, AND embrace evangelical theology. The confessional bibliology of the organization is belief in “The unique divine inspiration, integrity, and authority of the Bible.” Nothing is said about inerrancy. Wouldn’t you agree that this is a better source than Wikipedia?"
Me: "What??
Non-sequitur. What does #31 have to do with the definition of “theological liberal”?
And no, I really don’t think I’m reading too much into your words again. Not at all. If anything, and with all due respect, I think you may be blind to the pattern of caricatured assertions that you’re making about most inerrantists. The tar on your broad brush is not helpful at all. To recount your caricatured strawmen:
#1: Most inerrantists do not make Christ the handmaiden to the Bible.
#2. Most, if not all inerrantists do not believe that the Bible died on the Cross for them.
Next. In #28 I said that the Wikipedia definition is not bad, believing that you would focus on the current content of that entry instead of a misdirect play to the source of that entry."
----------
Dr. Wallace is a terrific text-criticism scholar, but in the exchange above I was not overly impressed.
For those interested, my exchange with Professor Wallace is on his post/thread:
ReplyDeleteI Don't Get Bart Ehrman.
Words of light and life
ReplyDeleteYes, but to paraphrase an Evangelical scholar:
I know that written words of light and life did not die on the cross for me.
Steve said: "Jesus doesn’t speak to us directly. Rather, he speaks through others. We have reported words of Jesus."
ReplyDeleteYes but we have more than that Steve. It is not "Father, Son and Holy Bible."
Consider the early church, (say the first 400 years); did they have a complete NT? They had fragments, if that, which became the NT.
We cannot follow the early churches' example as living churches who believed Christ's words in this our modern age, if we value a book they did not have more than the Holy Spirit they did have.
This is essentially what your post is suggesting.
Though all scripture had the same character as the prophet's speech, whether preached or written. (2 Peter 1:19-21), it was not the printed text itself, in its multiple fragments, forms and languages, that was God's word, but His original out-breathing that was His "theopneustos".
Add to this, the effective work of the Holy Spirit providing understanding and illuminating the text (how ever it appears to us in textual form), and you have the word of God. [1 Cor 2:12-14][1 John 2:20,27][Psa 119:18].
For any Christian to say that the doctrine of "infallibility" is an in-house argument, and not a necessary doctrine for salvation, is more a comment on the state of doctrine within Christianity, than it is on a person's personal stance.
To say that the doctrine of infallibility is not an essential doctrine for salvation does not go far enough to show what a person's beliefs are about what constitutes "theopneustos" since part of the debate is about whether or not "theopneustos" is scoped to include the transmission or translation of the written word.
Surely, you're not arguing that for salvation, it is essential to believe some particular biblical translation is infallible? (I suspect not). If so which version of the text; in English; in Greek?
For one to suggest that WLC personally denies biblical infallibility, one would have to show that his belief extends to God's initial "theopneustos" or out-breathing, and to the Holy Spirit's subsequent illumination to believers.
This has not been done.
ἐκκλησία, WLC clearly said he believes in Biblical inerrancy in the podcast. I would assume that would include Biblical infallibility since for us Evangelicals, the two terms are nearly synonymous. However, for some Catholics, infallibility doesn't necessarily include inerrancy. The teaching of Scripture on faith and morals would be infallible, but details that don't deal with faith and morals could be in error. Though, other conservative Catholics would say that the historic Catholic position is both infallibility AND inerrancy.
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed Pinoy said: "WLC clearly said he believes in Biblical inerrancy in the podcast."
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed Pinoy, my point to Steve was whether or not WLC affirmed a belief in Biblical inerrancy, the comment itself (that everyone is reacting to), that 'inerrancy' as a doctrine, is merely a point of in-house debate, cannot be taken to mean, what some of his critics are taking it to mean.
Whether or not WLC affirmed his belief in inerrancy, what he actually said is not sufficient to criticism him as saying something contrary to how salvation is understood by the vast majority of Christians, or as saying something untrue, or unbiblical.
ἐκκλησία said...
ReplyDelete“Yes but we have more than that Steve. It is not ‘Father, Son and Holy Bible.’"
Since the reported words of Jesus are reported by divine inspiration, you’re setting up the false dichotomy.
“Consider the early church, (say the first 400 years); did they have a complete NT? They had fragments, if that, which became the NT.”
Which does nothing to contradict my statement that “Jesus doesn’t speak to us directly. Rather, he speaks through others. We have reported words of Jesus.”
“We cannot follow the early churches' example as living churches who believed Christ's words in this our modern age, if we value a book they did not have more than the Holy Spirit they did have.”
The Holy Spirit didn’t give them independent access to the words of Jesus.
“Though all scripture had the same character as the prophet's speech, whether preached or written. (2 Peter 1:19-21), it was not the printed text itself, in its multiple fragments, forms and languages, that was God's word, but His original out-breathing that was His ‘theopneustos.’”
i) By definition, “Scripture” is written.
ii) God doesn’t “breath out” in a vacuum. Inspiration takes an object. It may be an inspired speaker or an inspired writer.
iii) BTW, let’s not get carried away with the respiratory metaphor. It’s not as if God literally exhales his word.
“Add to this, the effective work of the Holy Spirit providing understanding and illuminating the text (how ever it appears to us in textual form), and you have the word of God. [1 Cor 2:12-14][1 John 2:20,27][Psa 119:18].”
No, the word of God is not a combination of inspiration and illumination. Illumination applies to the audience, not the message.
“Surely, you're not arguing that for salvation, it is essential to believe some particular biblical translation is infallible? (I suspect not).”
Since you can’t quote me to that effect, your question is beating the air.
“For one to suggest that WLC personally denies biblical infallibility…”
Once again, you can’t quote me on that.
You’re a bright guy, so your chronic misreading of my statements is a bit puzzling.
"Annoyed Pinoy, my point to Steve was whether or not WLC affirmed a belief in Biblical inerrancy, the comment itself (that everyone is reacting to), that 'inerrancy' as a doctrine, is merely a point of in-house debate, cannot be taken to mean, what some of his critics are taking it to mean."
Of course, you don't bother to spell out what you take them to mean–so your accusation is a whole lot of nothing.
"Whether or not WLC affirmed his belief in inerrancy, what he actually said is not sufficient to criticism him as saying something contrary to how salvation is understood by the vast majority of Christians, or as saying something untrue, or unbiblical."
That's a bare assertion. What is more, your statement is scarcely intelligible.
Steve said: "Since the reported words of Jesus are reported by divine inspiration, you’re setting up the false dichotomy."
ReplyDeleteYes but Steve, there is no dichotomy in pointing out that the same words reported by divine inspiration are also illuminated by divine inspiration.
When you say "“Jesus doesn’t speak to us directly. Rather, he speaks through others. We have reported words of Jesus.” who exactly are you crediting with infallible inspiration?
You seem to be equivocating between scripture's principle author (the Holy Spirit) who is infallible, and scripture's secondary author (man) who is not. Or are you suggesting man as the secondary author of scripture "graphe" is also infallible?
It is not un-Christian or unbiblical to distinguish between the role of the Holy Spirit and man, or between what God actually inspired and its extant literary form.
Steve wrote: "The Holy Spirit didn’t give them independent access to the words of Jesus."
Personally, I wouldn't presume to know exactly what the Holy Spirit did not give them. So are you saying the Holy Spirit gave them "tradition" then?
Regardless, given the early churches ability to successfully 'distinguish' gnosticism from the gospel, it's certain the Holy Spirit did give them independent discernment about the words of Jesus.
Steve wrote: i) By definition, “Scripture” is written.
Yes but as J. I. Packer (and others) point out, since "scripture" biblically is indistinguishable from "the prophetic word" [2 Peter 1:19-21], and since both are 'out-breathed by God' (theopneustos) according to [2 Tim 3:16], it isn't the form 'scripture' takes, whether written revelation on parchment, or spoken revelation, that matters since man is merely the secondary author.
Rather, it is the out-breathing, the initiating, the prompting, the enlightening, and the superintending of man, as the secondary author, by the Holy Spirit (as primary author) that matters. This is why Paul's spoken teaching (gospel) was treated no different than 'scripture' in [1 Cor 15:1]
So whether or not we dogmatically stick to a "written" definition of scripture, the point remains, behind the diverse and fragmented historical text's remains a revelation that needed the Holy Spirit to become imparted, just as it did to be recognised and understood correctly.
Steve said: "ii) God doesn’t “breath out” in a vacuum. Inspiration takes an object. It may be an inspired speaker or an inspired writer."
Of course, but again who exactly are you claiming is infallible; the principle author or the secondary author?
Steve said: "iii) BTW, let’s not get carried away with the respiratory metaphor. It’s not as if God literally exhales his word.
I'm not rejecting Packer's claim (quoting L. Koehler's Old Testament Theology, 1957) that "All scripture is essentially verbal in nature." If I'm taking this too far, it is because I don't see any reason to doubt that claim.
Steve said: "No, the word of God is not a combination of inspiration and illumination. Illumination applies to the audience, not the message."
Steve, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If God doesn’t “breath out” in a vacuum, he also doesn't expect his word to propagate in one.
Just as inspiration takes an object (to manifest it), it also takes an object (to interpret it). God's inspired word - spoken, also has both a speaker and a listener.
As I wrote before, WLC's assertion about a person's understanding of the doctrine of infallibility not being essential for salvation IS being mis-used to criticise him unjustifiably , plain and simple.
For me the last exchanges, EKK's, seems odd; such as this question:
ReplyDeleteOf course, but again who exactly are you claiming is infallible; the principle author or the secondary author?
Hmmmm, from a secondary position, I answer, "who cares"?
Why?
Well, a secondary source, the Apostle Paul, wrote:
1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
To wit, I respond, seeing the Holy Spirit "vindicated" Jesus Christ before the Father, He also vindicated the correct inspired Words proclaimed and written down that we claim are the 66 books of the Bible in exactly the same Holy manner. Though the Scriptures are a secondary source of a Primary inspiration vindicated by the Holy Spirit or even through a third person participation to that anointed secondary source by the inspiration of the Primary Source, the Holy Spirit, see Roman's 16:22 or 1 Peter 5:12,
they are still, the 66 books, even now, being illuminated by the sanctification work of the One and Only Holy Spirit to the hearts of those being saved by the same Faith heard when hearing the Word of God!
Who is the One who gives us the ears to hear the Word of God but the same Holy Spirit Who vindicated Christ according to the Will of God, not man, to God and man? Angels don't need that sort of vindication, neither to the devils, seeing they tremble when they hear the inspired Word of God coming out of all secondary sources!
Psa 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands,
Psa 149:7 to execute vengeance on the nations and punishments on the peoples,
Psa 149:8 to bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron,
Psa 149:9 to execute on them the judgment written! This is honor for all his godly ones. Praise the LORD!
No one seeks after God and there simply is none righteous, no not one!
Further, Ekk, you write:
Just as inspiration takes an object (to manifest it), it also takes an object (to interpret it). God's inspired word - spoken, also has both a speaker and a listener.
To wit, I respond, that speaker you speak about was first a listener vindicated by the Holy Spirit so that by the measure we, in spirit and truth, vindicate his words by are in the same manner, "by the Holy Spirit", who inspired the writings He vindicates that are illuminated within us as an "unction" or "anointing" and "testimony" to our hearts, and believe and are then sealed by the Holy Spirit's work upon our spirit. It is that these are now the inspired Words of God that we can put our full faith and credit in and embrace, practice and attain to in this life before we depart to His Eternal Glory we are called to ourself, like a calf skipping about in a field with glee for the joys of Life after feeding on the utters of the Word of Life by reading or hearing them and then illuminated within our spirit by Him, the Holy Spirit!
Yeah!
Natmallc said: "Hmmmm, from a secondary position, I answer, "who cares"?"
ReplyDeleteNatmallc, people who wrestle with the question of translation (into English, say) try to ascertain theologically whether or not the translation process also involves the Holy Spirit, and if so How?
This example, admittedly, is very narrow.
Why should you care? Because even if you have a different understanding about what 'inspired' or 'infallible' means you still should be able to answer the question from an unbeliever "What does it mean the bible is God's word."
Every believer should hope their answer and their understanding is profoundly biblical.
In the post above, I merely pointed out that the work of the Holy Spirit in the creation of 'God's word' needs to be understood clearly and differentiated from merely the creation of the text.
The example of an OT prophet's speech, as an illustration that the role of the Holy Spirit can be simple (and infallible) in simply using the prophet (imperfect man) as an instrument of transmission.
But even then it is not that simple; some prophets had visions, some had to act out the prophecy, and still others 'experienced' their prophecies both in body and in the spirit.
Add to that process, interpretation had to be provided, and the prophecy had to be conveyed. Of the prophecies we know about, they also had to be written in textual form. We know from the dead sea scrolls that the interpretations we have of some biblical prophecies had many contemporary variances.
That shows us two things: First, though the prophecy may have been initially given in an infallible manner, its initial interpretation may not have been infallible. Second, the Holy Spirit may have used a process of revelation to provide the correct interpretation of the prophecy, so its meaning may not always have been understood for quite some while.
This means then, indeed the Holy Spirit must deal with our short-comings as secondary authors.
New covenant scripture (in its textual form) was undoubtedly given in a similar manner. Looking at NT manuscripts, no one denies that they contain many variances.
There are some, for whom, these variances are cause for a loss of faith. As WLC correctly points out the doctrine of salvation speaks only to the atoning work of Christ, and not to the textual fidelity of our received manuscripts.
He was correctly confronting the idea that our faith depends on the existence of a complete body of ancient text devoid of error; it doesn't. Faith simply depends on Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, if He was who He said He was.
To criticize WLC for pointing this out this is simply being pedantic.
“Yes but Steve, there is no dichotomy in pointing out that the same words reported by divine inspiration are also illuminated by divine inspiration.”
ReplyDeleteYou use terms like “illumination” without bothering to define your terms. I regard “illumination” as an equivalent metaphor to “regeneration.”
“When you say ‘Jesus doesn’t speak to us directly. Rather, he speaks through others. We have reported words of Jesus.’ who exactly are you crediting with infallible inspiration?”
God is the subject of inspiration, while the Bible writer (or, in some cases, speaker) is the object of inspiration. God inspires, the Bible writer is thereby inspired. And the writing is inspired in the sense of being the end-product of that process.
“You seem to be equivocating between scripture's principle author (the Holy Spirit) who is infallible, and scripture's secondary author (man) who is not. Or are you suggesting man as the secondary author of scripture ‘graphe’ is also infallible?”
The Bible writer is rendered infallible in what he writes under inspiration. In principle, that can apply to the spoken word as well as the written word. But as a practical matter, even in the case of the spoken word, what we now have are inspired written records of inspired spoken words.
“It is not un-Christian or unbiblical to distinguish between the role of the Holy Spirit and man, or between what God actually inspired and its extant literary form.”
Well, the “extant” literary form would be copies of the autographa.
“Personally, I wouldn't presume to know exactly what the Holy Spirit did not give them.”
To the contrary, it would be highly presumptuous to say the Holy Spirit gave the church fathers independent access to the history of Jesus by direct inspiration of the church fathers.
“So are you saying the Holy Spirit gave them ‘tradition’ then?”
You have a bad habit of confusing what you say with what I say. You’re the one who make vague claims about “the early churches” having the Holy Spirit. That’s your framework, not mine. It’s incumbent on you to clarify your own terms.
And since you’re not dumb, it doesn’t behoove you to play dumb by twisting my words when, as you well know, I’m merely responding to you on your own assumptions, not mine. Drop the rhetorical brinksmanship.
Cont. “Regardless, given the early churches ability to successfully 'distinguish' gnosticism from the gospel, it's certain the Holy Spirit did give them independent discernment about the words of Jesus.”
ReplyDeleteNow you’re hiding behind equivocations. “Discerning” what Jesus meant is hardly the same thing as having independent access to what he said. You know the difference, so don’t play games. If you can’t bring yourself to argue in good faith, we’ll show you the door.
“Rather, it is the out-breathing, the initiating, the prompting, the enlightening, and the superintending of man, as the secondary author, by the Holy Spirit (as primary author) that matters. This is why Paul's spoken teaching (gospel) was treated no different than 'scripture' in [1 Cor 15:1].”
No, it’s not just the process that matters, but the result. The cause is not an end in itself. Rather, a certain cause generates an intended effect.
“Of course, but again who exactly are you claiming is infallible; the principle author or the secondary author?”
Both. One infallible agent rendering another agent infallible. You create a false dichotomy.
“If I'm taking this too far, it is because I don't see any reason to doubt that claim.”
Metaphors don’t make claims. You need to interpret the literal significance of the metaphor.
“Steve, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If God doesn’t “breath out” in a vacuum, he also doesn't expect his word to propagate in one.”
It’s like the distinction between creation, providence, and miracle.
“Just as inspiration takes an object (to manifest it), it also takes an object (to interpret it). God's inspired word - spoken, also has both a speaker and a listener.”
Which doesn’t ipso facto confer infallibility on the listener.
“As I wrote before, WLC's assertion about a person's understanding of the doctrine of infallibility not being essential for salvation IS being mis-used to criticise him unjustifiably , plain and simple.”
Reasserting your unfounded claim doesn’t make it any truer. You impute to me something I didn’t say, then proceed to take grave exception to your own imputation.
You suffer from a nearly psychotic inability to differentiate yourself from others. Resist your impulse to project.
Steve said: " I regard “illumination” as an equivalent metaphor to “regeneration.”
ReplyDeleteI'd agree with that.
Steve said: "God is the subject of inspiration, while the Bible writer (or, in some cases, speaker) is the object of inspiration. God inspires, the Bible writer is thereby inspired. And the writing is inspired in the sense of being the end-product of that process."
Yes and I'm asking you to clarify what part of that process is infallible?
I'd argue, that though we have thousands of ancient texts, containing variances, none of the variances threaten, detract or contradict fundamental Christian orthodoxy. (In other words, the noise in now way, impedes the signal)
But that shows that part of the process cannot be considered infallible, and makes it clear the Holy Spirit superintended this part of process (I'm speaking about the putting pen to paper part of the process, to wit).
Accordingly, it is not blasphemous, or even contra-orthodox to accept textual errors; and I believe this is what WLC argues and was arguing.
Steve said: " Drop the rhetorical brinksmanship."
You mistake me, but I seek not to cause offense, so please forgive.
Steve said: "Now you’re hiding behind equivocations. “Discerning” what Jesus meant is hardly the same thing as having independent access to what he said."
Steve, it was precisely to avoid equivocating that I employed the word 'discernment'. You are accusing me saying one thing, meaning another, but I agree with you - there is a difference, and my words were chosen to make that clear.
From this comment "the Holy Spirit didn’t give them independent access to the words of Jesus" you seem to believe I hold that as true.
What I believe as true, is that God's process of inspiring His word does not require man's reception of it to be perfect (or infallible), nor does it require man to be infallible, AS LONG AS THE HOLY SPIRIT SAFEGUARDS ITS ULTIMATE INTEGRITY
This is true because His Holy Spirit exists (in part) to ensure that whatever errors our imperfections inject in its transmission are detected; something like a Holy Hamming code, if you we call it that.
This means, of course, that I don't believe in a type of Christian autographa in the Mormon sense, where some perfect set of non-accessible text's are behind the ones we indeed have; there is no need for that.
Steve said: "If you can’t bring yourself to argue in good faith, we’ll show you the door."
Steve, I only argue in good faith. Even so, you have it within your power to show me the door, whenever you feel it appropriate, and I don't begrudge you this, this being your blog. Although I argue with you, I am not against you.
Steve said: "It’s like the distinction between creation, providence, and miracle."
I didn't understand what you were saying here. Could you amplify the comparison?
Steve said: "Which doesn’t ipso facto confer infallibility on the listener."
Yes I agree. Given what you appear to be saying overall, I'm thinking that in this "debate", there may actually be more "violent agreement" than "disagreement".
Steve said: "You suffer from a nearly psychotic inability to differentiate yourself from others. Resist your impulse to project.
Although you've provided no foundation for asserting this, I thank you again for switching your focus from the argument onto my personal deficiencies.
Lamentably, I will likely continue to reflect all sorts of shortcomings until Christ returns, even as you point them out.
However, please don't let the imperfections of the arguer prevent you from interacting with the imperfections of the argument.
Its not clear, where, if at all, controversy lays between us.