I'm noticing the potential convergence of what had been two distinct theological groups. There's already a conceptual convergence.
For convenience, let's call the first group progressive evangelicals. When evangelicals move to the left, it's usually a two-step process. They begin by saying this is a question of interpretation rather than inerrancy. They become irate if you accuse them of denying inerrancy. "How dare you equate your interpretation of Scripture with inerrancy! Just because we disagree with your interpretation doesn't mean we deny the inerrancy of Scripture. Don't be so arrogant!"
But, of late, progressive evangelicals are ditching that face-saving distinction. They admit the Bible is mistaken in some of what it teaches. Three of the hot-button issues are homosexuality, the historicity of Adam, and the OT "genocidal" commands.
But the list can include other things. They may ax the historicity of the Exodus, or say Paul was a child of his times on the subject of male headship. And so on and so forth.
All these disparate issues are symptomatic of a common underlying issue: the authority of Scripture. They reject the authority of Scripture.
Basically, they distinguish between the essential and inessential teachings of Scripture. They say you can reject what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, Adam and Eve, "genocidal commands," the Exodus, &c., and still be a faithful Christian, because these aren't Christian essentials.
Their position is simplicity itself: Whatever Biblical teachings they reject are, by definition, inessential. Their very rejection automatically demotes the offending doctrine to the dustbin of inessentials.
So this group is already center-left on the ethical, political, and theological spectrum. I can't help noticing how this seems to coincide with the Obama presidency. Apparently, progressive evangelicals feel the current cultural milieu makes it safe for them to come out of hiding.
In a way, this is a refreshing development. They drop the pretense of publicly maintaining a position (inerrancy) which hitherto they privately denied. Now they've come clean.
On a related note, I'm struck by how quickly John Walton's view of Gen 1 garnered a following. There was an instant audience for his treatment. Like a neglected market niche. Progressive evangelicals who were just waiting for his interpretation to come along to justify their preexisting unease with Gen 1.
It reminds me of how little resistance there was to Darwin's Origin of Species. If Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist, Walton made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied progressive evangelical.
Many old-earth creationists, and even a few theistic evolutionists (e.g. Warfield) are committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. Their interpretation of Gen 1 is consistent with the inerrancy of Gen 1.
What makes Walton's approach different is that it erases the distinction between interpretation and inerrancy, for his interpretation commits him to the errancy of Gen 1. On his view, God accommodated the narrator's obsolete understanding of the cosmos. God did not correct the narrator's erroneous viewpoint. What the narrator purports to be the case is false. So on his interpretation, Gen 1 is simply false in that respect.
Now let's compare all this with the second group. We might call them Resurrection apologists.
Needless to say, Christian apologists have always defended the Resurrection. That goes without saying. But a more recent development is using the Resurrection to defend Christianity in general. They treat the Resurrection as both the theological and apologetical linchpin of Christianity.
To my knowledge, John Warwick Montgomery initiated this trend. Other apologists followed suit.
This is related to a "minimal facts" approach. To some extent I think the "minimal facts" approach was originally adapted to the time-limits of a live, public, formal debate. But it's taken on a life of its own.
On this methodology, an apologist brackets the inspiration of Scripture and treats the NT like any other ancient historical source. He defends the basic reliability of the relevant NT passages which witness to the Resurrection.
This apologetic strategy is spawning a corresponding theological posture, in which you distinguish between essential doctrines like the Resurrection and inessential doctrines like inerrancy. On this view, if the Resurrection never happened, Christianity would be false–but if the Exodus never happened, Christianity would still be true. If the tomb wasn't empty on Easter, Christianity would be false–but if Adam never existed, Christianity would still be true.
Now, unlike progressive evangelicals, Resurrection apologists are center-right on the theological spectrum. Yet their fallback position on inerrancy is pretty much interchangeable with the position of progressive evangelicals. The main difference is that, at least for now, the rejection of inerrancy by Resurrection apologists is still hypothetical, whereas progressive evangelicals actually and openly reject it.
But both groups already distinguish between essential and inessential Biblical teachings. In principle (or practice), a faithful Christian can disregard inessential Biblical teachings. And I don't see any appreciable difference in the examples which both groups use to illustrate inessential Biblical doctrines. Both groups could draw up the same list. At least, their respective lists would overlap to a very considerable degree.
Although the Resurrection apologists still espouse inerrancy, it's unclear how they can maintain a stable distinction between progressive evangelicals and themselves. There no longer seems to be a fundamental distinction in principle. Perhaps the only difference is that they disagree on whether or not Scripture has actually crossed the threshold of error. But that's not a make-or-break issue for Resurrection apologists. They don't have a major stake in the outcome of that debate.
These two groups arrived that their respective positions independently of each other, yet their respective positions are conceptually convergent. For both, the authority of Scripture is expendable.
I am sure that when you say John Walton's view of Genesis commits him to the errancy of Genesis 1, that you are aware that you are presupposing a very particular view of inerrancy that is not itself a good and necessary consequence of Scriptural teaching. I am by no means a "progressive evangelical," but I believe that there is great value in what Walton has to say. If it turns out that the Genesis 1 parallels are divine accommodations to prevailing ancient Near Eastern cosmology and cosmogony, shouldn't we understand that God himself was providentially guiding the entire process? And--if that turns out to be the case--shouldn't our understanding of the veracity of Scripture flow from a humble acknowledgement that that is how God chose to reveal his sovereignty over all of creation to the ancient Hebrews? If we have an invincible presupposition that Genesis 1 is a journalistic blow-by-blow account of what an individual would have seen God doing on the days of creation, then Walton's view will necessarily seem to be that it incorporates error. But if we are humble before the word and if--if--it turns out that Genesis 1 contains ancient Near Eastern categories of thinking that we would not accept today, then shouldn't we seek to adjust our conception of inerrancy to what God has actually done? I am not proposing an uncritical acceptance of all that ANE studies claims--rather, it seems that some sort of reflective equilibrium is called for in adjusting our philosophical, theological, and literary assumptions about what Scripture must be like in order for it to be inerrant.
ReplyDelete>>If it turns out that the Genesis 1 parallels are divine accommodations to prevailing ancient Near Eastern cosmology and cosmogony, shouldn't we understand that God himself was providentially guiding the entire process?
DeleteWhy would you jump to that conclusion rather than, say, that God simply didn't inspire this account at all? The problem I see with this method, is that it seems like a save-the-phenomena approach that can be applied to anything. No matter what errors we find in Scripture, we can "save" something of our faith by simply explaining it as God speaking through false worldviews of the people at the time.
What principled objection would you have to someone applying the same salvaging principle to, say, Paul's view resurrection? Why limit God's sovereignty to speak through mundane facts? Maybe God is so sovereign he can speak through theological error too. Maybe you should humble yourself even more than you are already and accept that.
>>If we have an invincible presupposition that Genesis 1 is a journalistic blow-by-blow account of what an individual would have seen God doing on the days of creation
Do you honestly think those are the only two options? Either Walton's reading of Genesis or a "journalistic blow-by-blow account"?
>>what Scripture must be like in order for it to be inerrant.
Instead of molding a word around a concept, why not define your term first and then see if it fits?
Also, often those who adhere to Walton's views on this also charge YEC with making God a liar, because God would not be deceiving all scientists who look at the evidence for an old earth. If that argument works, then why isn't God guilty of deceiving ancient Israelites by putting his stamp of approval onto a false view of the earth and the universe?
Why would I conclude that God providentially guided the entire process of the composition of Genesis 1?--Because I believe that Genesis is God-breathed Scripture. The doctrine of inspiration is not imperiled by relinquishing a particular modernistic (for lack of a better word) conception of inerrancy.
DeleteThere is a principled--and I think quite persuasive argument against applying what you call a "save the phenomena" approach to the Apostle Paul's view of the resurrection. That principled argument begins from the premise that Paul's writings are letters. We can look at the internal evidence of Paul's writings as well as the conventions of other similar pieces of writing (e.g., the letters of Cicero) from the ancient world to see how the text tells us to interpret it. What genre is this piece of writing--that is an absolutely crucial question to ask when approaching any text.
Think about it like this: what if you picked up your newspaper and tried reading the classified advertisements the same way that you read the comics. The classifieds are going to turn out to be terribly unentertaining, so you will judge them as inferior. But once you understand the difference between comics and classifieds, and the conventions and expections that govern how they are written and to be read, it prevents you from making such a mistake. Now, nobody is likely to mistake the classified ads for the comics, but note that it would be much easier for someone to mistake an op/ed for a straightforward news report. Again, there are different conventions and we have different expectations. In one case, a straightforward journalistic account, and in the other, an attempt to persuade you that something is the case or ought to be done.
As for your second question, I am not sure in what way it matters what options I personally think there are for interpreting Genesis. I know that there have been many different proposals.
As for your third question(s), Kevin Vanhoozer has done some interesting suggestions that are worth taking seriously. He very helpfully employs speech-act theory to suggest that inerrancy applies at the level of illocution (instead of locution). I cannot reproduce his suggestions here, but they can be found online.
I think that Walton himself does not commit to a view of the age of the universe. As I understand his argument, he thinks that Genesis itself is not committed to an age of the universe. Now, others who follow Walton very well may be committed old earth creationists.
Your closing question about God deceiving the ancient Israelites is well-taken. I like it. I could speculate, but I'd rather not because it might get me in trouble.
Thanks for your interaction on this.
>>>Why would I conclude that God providentially guided the entire process of the composition of Genesis 1?--Because I believe that Genesis is God-breathed Scripture.
DeleteSurely you can see that this is not an answer. All you've said is you believe it because you believe it.
>>>That principled argument begins from the premise that Paul's writings are letters. We can look at the internal evidence of Paul's writings as well as the conventions of other similar pieces of writing (e.g., the letters of Cicero) from the ancient world to see how the text tells us to interpret it. What genre is this piece of writing--that is an absolutely crucial question to ask when approaching any text.
Sorry, but I fail to see any coherent argument there. The idea is that God used wrong beliefs about the world in Genesis for some purpose. Not sure how you think Paul's writings being a "letter" magically dissolves the same idea being applied there.
>>>As for your second question, I am not sure in what way it matters what options I personally think there are for interpreting Genesis. I know that there have been many different proposals.
It matters in the sense that you seemed to be implying a false dichotomy.
Ok: Last response :-)
DeleteThere is a distinction between (1) believing that Genesis is inspired and (2) believing that a particular conception of inerrancy holds for Genesis. One can deny that certain conceptions of inerrancy are true while still quite heartily affirming another conception of inerrancy as well as its inspired nature. This is not a tautology.
As for your second point, we ignore genre at our peril. God has inspired a Bible full of writings with different genres. We honor God's word and set ourselves under its authority by being sensitive to the character of the writings that he has inspired.
Melancholy,
DeleteTaking your points in reverse order:
First, your genre remarks won't get you any traction as far as I can see. Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative. At best, you can call it "exalted prose." But I'm not sure how much you are going to want to squeeze out of that.
Second, of course one can define "inspiration" or "inerrancy" anyway they want. I didn't say this was a tautology. But I can't see how you think you're going to cash out "God-breathed Scripture" in a way that's significantly different than "God providentially guided" such that you don't end up saying "I believe it because I believe it." ... in regards to where I said "this is not an answer."
MelancholyDane
Delete"I am sure that when you say John Walton's view of Genesis commits him to the errancy of Genesis 1, that you are aware that you are presupposing a very particular view of inerrancy that is not itself a good and necessary consequence of Scriptural teaching."
I'm not presupposing anything. I'm not judging Walton by my own standards. Rather, I'm judging Walton by his own standards. He imputes a false cosmography to Gen 1. He believes the narrator enunciates a false cosmography (i.e. a triple-decker universe). Rather than correcting that error, God "accommodated" that error. Walton thinks that cosmography is erroneous. Presumably, you do as well.
I'm not operating with a "very particular view of inerrancy." Rather, I'm responding to Walton on his own terms.
"If it turns out that the Genesis 1 parallels are divine accommodations to prevailing ancient Near Eastern cosmology and cosmogony, shouldn't we understand that God himself was providentially guiding the entire process?"
It would be more logical to conclude that God absented himself from the process. Indeed, it would be logical to conclude that the Creator in Gen 1 is no more real than the gods of other ANE creation myths.
"And--if that turns out to be the case--shouldn't our understanding of the veracity of Scripture flow from a humble acknowledgement that that is how God chose to reveal his sovereignty over all of creation to the ancient Hebrews?"
It would be more logical to conclude that God didn't reveal himself to the ancient Hebrews.
"If we have an invincible presupposition that Genesis 1 is a journalistic blow-by-blow account of what an individual would have seen God doing on the days of creation..."
That's a decoy to deflect attention away from the real issue.
"…then Walton's view will necessarily seem to be that it incorporates error."
He thinks Gen 1 incorporates an erroneous cosmography. A three-story universe.
"But if we are humble before the word and if--if--it turns out that Genesis 1 contains ancient Near Eastern categories of thinking that we would not accept today, then shouldn't we seek to adjust our conception of inerrancy to what God has actually done?"
That's not a case of "adjusting our conception of inerrancy," but concluding that God did not protect Scripture from error.
"I am not proposing an uncritical acceptance of all that ANE studies claims--rather, it seems that some sort of reflective equilibrium is called for in adjusting our philosophical, theological, and literary assumptions about what Scripture must be like in order for it to be inerrant."
You're resorting to deceptive euphemisms.
>> "I'm not presupposing anything . . ."
DeleteSteve, I cannot imagine that you actually believe this. You are very clearly (to me, at least) presupposing a conception of inerrancy that operates on the level of locution. But there are other conceptions of inerrancy that apply on the level of illocution--and on which Genesis 1 is inerrant, even if God has accommodated ANE conceptions. Kevin Vanhoozer, for example, defends a version. Now, you may not like these conceptions of inerrancy. But you cannot maintain that you are not presupposing a conception of inerrancy that is at odds with them. Even if you want to maintain that such conceptions are not, in fact, conceptions of inerrancy, that is a judgment that you are making (partly) on the basis of your own particular conception of inerrancy.
Even if you disagree with me (which I think you must) surely you can recognize this fundamental point.
I just realized that Walton himself defends a view of inerrancy in accordance with which it is God's illocution that is inerrant. See The Lost World of Scripture chapter 3. So you cannot even maintain that you are judging Walton according to his own standard.
DeleteYou initially said "The doctrine of inspiration is not imperiled by relinquishing a particular modernistic (for lack of a better word) conception of inerrancy."
DeleteNow you do an about-face by invoking 20C speech-act theory. What is that if not "a particular modernistic (for lack of a better word) conception of inerrancy [and/or inspiration]"?
Actually, my conception of inerrancy is based on the self-witness of Scripture, as documented by scholars like Frame and Warfield. That's inductive rather an a priori.
DeleteFor both, the authority of Scripture is expendable.
ReplyDeleteIs this really a fair statement about most "resurrection apologists"? Most affirm inspiration, infallibility and some version of inerrancy (even if not the modern and recent ICBI version). Isn't there a historical question as to whether past theologians (including the church fathers, the schoolmen and even Reformation/post-Reformation writers) would have affirmed a view of inerrancy that corresponds to the ICBI version? Isn't there a danger of us anachronistically imputing to them a contemporary view of inerrancy? For example, based on Calvin's commentaries don't both liberal and even some conservative scholars doubt that Calvin held to inerrancy in the modern sense as developed by the Princetonian theologians and refined by ICBI?
Couldn't a case be made that ICBI is a theological novum which may be good or may be bad? There's a sense in which the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura is a theological novum but nevertheless is the natural and logical outworking of principles and practices held by the church from the beginning (as documented by King and Webster in their three volume Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith). Maybe ICBI too is the logical outworking of the Church's affirmation of Scripture's infallibility. Or maybe, some other view of inerrancy is actually more Biblical, historical and true/accurate/precise. Maybe Christians need to once again discuss inerrancy and refine it even further. Just as Nicaea was later refined by Constantinople I, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.
In a previous post Steve wrote:
vii) What's the proper response to doubting inerrancy? Consider two possible responses:
a) The Bible seems to be in error. Therefore, the Bible is in error. Inerrancy is false.
b) The Bible seems to be in error. Therefore, I'm in error. Inerrancy is true, but my interpretation is false, or my understanding of truth and error needs to be refined.
In keeping with "b)", isn't it possible that *our* understanding and definition of "Inerrancy" is false or at least inadequate or imprecise? That in addition to refining our understanding of "truth and error" we might need to refine our understanding of Inerrancy. Correctly affirming "Inerrancy is true" doesn't tell us which view of inerrancy is true. Can we (must we?) say that the ICBI and related documents are "the final word(s)" on the doctrine of Inerrancy?
ANNOYED PINOY "Is this really a fair statement about most 'resurrection apologists'? Most affirm inspiration, infallibility and some version of inerrancy (even if not the modern and recent ICBI version)."
DeleteOf course it's a fair statement. They stake out the position that even if the Bible was an uninspired set of historical documents, those documents would be sufficiently reliable to establish the Resurrection. And if the Resurrection is true, Christianity is true. The veracity of the Christian faith could survive intact even if the Bible was uninspired. So it follows straightforwardly from their position that the authority of Scripture is expendable.
"Isn't there a historical question as to whether past theologians (including the church fathers, the schoolmen and even Reformation/post-Reformation writers) would have affirmed a view of inerrancy that corresponds to the ICBI version? Isn't there a danger of us anachronistically imputing to them a contemporary view of inerrancy? For example, based on Calvin's commentaries don't both liberal and even some conservative scholars doubt that Calvin held to inerrancy in the modern sense as developed by the Princetonian theologians and refined by ICBI?"
You're parroting the historical revisionism of McKim/Rogers.
"Couldn't a case be made that ICBI is a theological novum which may be good or may be bad?"
ICBI is a red herring. My post isn't predicated on ICBI.
ANNOYED PINOY
Delete"Is this really a fair statement about most 'resurrection apologists'? Most affirm inspiration, infallibility and some version of inerrancy (even if not the modern and recent ICBI version)."
Of late, W. L. Craig has made several statements (which I've documented) that seem to indicate his current view of Scripture is less conservative than it used to be. That may well reflect the outworking of his apologetic philosophy.
"The veracity of the Christian faith could survive intact even if the Bible was uninspired. So it follows straightforwardly from their position that the authority of Scripture is expendable.
ReplyDeleteSteve, you're missing some logical steps here. It is true to say that the Christian faith (most specifically that Jesus is Lord) could survive intact even if the Bible was uninspired. However, it does not follow therefore that the inspiration and authority of Scripture is expendable. On the contrary, if Jesus is Lord, it follows directly that Scripture is both inspired and authoritative...because this is His view. You can't very well call Jesus your Lord while rejecting a key element of His belief system.
I don't deny that some people declare Jesus is Lord while setting aside the authority of Scripture when it suits them. I just deny that they do so logically. That there are such people is simply a fulfillment of Matt 7:21-23.
Mike Gantt
Delete"Steve, you're missing some logical steps here."
Sorry to disappoint you, but it's your own claims which are missing some logical steps. Case in point:
"It is true to say that the Christian faith (most specifically that Jesus is Lord) could survive intact even if the Bible was uninspired."
An assertion in search of a supporting argument.
"However, it does not follow therefore that the inspiration and authority of Scripture is expendable. On the contrary, if Jesus is Lord, it follows directly that Scripture is both inspired and authoritative...because this is His view. You can't very well call Jesus your Lord while rejecting a key element of His belief system."
Except that you sawed off the branch you're perched on. You haven't begun to establish from an uninspired Bible that Jesus is Lord. You haven't established from an uninspired Bible that statements attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him, rather than put in his mouth by creative redactors.
"I don't deny that some people declare Jesus is Lord while setting aside the authority of Scripture when it suits them. I just deny that they do so logically. That there are such people is simply a fulfillment of Matt 7:21-23."
Which at the initial stage of your argument is just a fallible attribution. And you haven't shown how you bootstrap your infallibilist claims from your fallibilist claims.
Steve,
DeleteYou seem to be dwelling in a world where the Bible either has to be infallible or unreliable. The reality is that it is either infallible or fallible, and fallible contains a spectrum ranging from reliable to unreliable.
The arguments are the same, but with different beginning premises - faillible reliability being easier to establish than infallible reliability.
P1: The Bible is infallible.
P2: The Bible declares Jesus to be Lord.
C: Jesus is Lord.
P1: The Bible is historically reliable.
P2: The Bible declares Jesus to be Lord.
C: Jesus is Lord.
Though the arguments are the same, the latter is a shorter and more direct step to the truth. From there it is another short step to infallibility:
P1: Jesus is Lord.
P2: Jesus believed the Bible to be the word of God (and therefore inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative, etc.)
C: The Bible is the word of God (and therefore inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative, etc.)
Keep the horse before the cart and more will be accomplished.
Mike Gantt
Delete"You seem to be dwelling in a world where the Bible either has to be infallible or unreliable."
A world where the Bible is infallible is the real world. That's the world I'm dwelling in.
You say:
P1: The Bible is historically reliable.
P2: The Bible declares Jesus to be Lord.
Unfortunately for you, P2 doesn't follow from P1. All you've done is to assert that entailment.
The Lordship of Christ is a theological interpretation, not a historical event. The general historical reliability of Scripture doesn't vouch for theological interpretations. That's not an eyewitness datum.
For that matter, the general historical reliability of Scripture doesn't even vouch for any reported event in particular.
You say:
P1: Jesus is Lord.
P2: Jesus believed the Bible to be the word of God (and therefore inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative, etc.)
Once again, P2 doesn't follow from P1. All you've done is to assert that entailment.
The general historical reliability of Scripture doesn't vouch for the authenticity of any particular saying attributed to Jesus.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThat Jesus is Lord is not a declaration that depends on any invdividual statement attributed to Jesus being authentic. It is the constantly-repeated claim of the New Testament disciples - evidenced over and over again from Acts through Revelation without abatement. Labeling it a "theological statement" does not change its status as a truth claim and a historical claim.
You sound like modern secularists who want to relegate the Bible to the sidelines of public discourse because it is "theological."
I take P2 in both cases to be self-evident to any objective reader - whether he regards the Bible as infallible or merely historically reliable.
Mike Gantt
Delete"That Jesus is Lord is not a declaration that depends on any invdividual statement attributed to Jesus being authentic. It is the constantly-repeated claim of the New Testament disciples - evidenced over and over again from Acts through Revelation without abatement. Labeling it a 'theological statement' does not change its status as a truth claim and a historical claim."
i) If you're using "Lordship" as a synonym for deity (i.e. Lord=Yahweh), then the Lordship of Christ is not a historical claim, but a theological interpretation. History concerns events. The deity of the Son is a timeless (or eternal) state.
ii) Apropos (i), the general historical reliability of Scripture doesn't vouch for theological interpretations. You're committing a category mistake. Try again.
iii) If you're using "Lordship" as a synonym for dominion or sovereignty, then you need to demonstrate how lordship (in that political sense) confers divine authority on Scripture.
iv) Or perhaps you're operating with an adoptionist Christology, according to which Jesus became Lord as a result of the Resurrection. If so, aside from the heretical Christology, how does apotheosis confer divine authority on Scripture?
"You sound like modern secularists who want to relegate the Bible to the sidelines of public discourse because it is 'theological.'"
One of your nasty habits is to resort to mock pious indignation when your arguments fail. But since you are the one whose apologetic methodology begins by treating the Bible as just a secular historical document, then there are built-in limitations to your chosen approach.
"I take P2 in both cases to be self-evident to any objective reader - whether he regards the Bible as infallible or merely historically reliable."
In other words, you can't muster an actual argument to demonstrate how P1 implies P2. So you camouflage your tendentious assertion by resorting to additional tendentious assertions.
I think the apostles would take issue with your portrayal of their mission as one of promulgating a "theological interpretation" rather than a historical claim. As long as you persist in that view, I don't think you're going to be able to see much beyond it.
DeleteAs for mustering an argument as to how a historically-reliable Bible allows one to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, you may not like what I have presented, but since you have presented no argument whatsoever as to how you can get an unbeliever to accept that the Bible is inerrant, it's hard to see how you have room to complain.
@Mike Gantt
Delete"I think the apostles would take issue with your portrayal of their mission as one of promulgating a 'theological interpretation' rather than a historical claim."
That's a false dichotomy. The apostles operated with both historical claims as well as theological interpretations in mind.
"As long as you persist in that view, I don't think you're going to be able to see much beyond it. As for mustering an argument as to how a historically-reliable Bible allows one to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, you may not like what I have presented, but since you have presented no argument whatsoever as to how you can get an unbeliever to accept that the Bible is inerrant, it's hard to see how you have room to complain."
For someone who criticizes others about complaining, you sure do complain a lot.
You're dissembling (as usual). The question is whether the Lordship of Christ is a historical claim. I've explained the problem with your assertion. You offer no counterargument. You just get testy and resort to feeble attempts at emotional manipulation.
DeleteYou play dumb about whether their mission was to promulgate a historical claim. The life of Christ is historical. The Resurrection is a historical event (to take one example). But the deity of Christ is not a historical event. Likewise, a theological interpretation is not equivalent to a historical event. In principle, and often in practice, a historical event is empirical. Something observers can witness. See, hear, and/or tough. By contrast, a theological interpretation concerns the significance of the event. The theological significance of an event is not a sensory property. Rather, it concerns God's intent.
"As for mustering an argument as to how a historically-reliable Bible allows one to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, you may not like what I have presented…"
What you presented was fallacious.
"but since you have presented no argument whatsoever as to how you can get an unbeliever to accept that the Bible is inerrant, it's hard to see how you have room to complain."
That's really not my responsibility, but the argument from prophecy is a superior alternative.
Mike Gantt
Delete"but since you have presented no argument whatsoever as to how you can get an unbeliever to accept that the Bible is inerrant, it's hard to see how you have room to complain."
If you actually paid attention to my response to Nick Peters, you'd notice that I distinguish between treating the Bible like an uninspired historical document as an apologetic strategy when witnessing to unbelievers and treating the Bible like an uninspired historical document as a fallback position for Christians who doubt inerrancy.
I didn't object to the former, although I drew attention to complications with that strategy. I did object to the latter.
Mike Gantt
ReplyDelete"I think the apostles would take issue with your portrayal of their mission as one of promulgating a 'theological interpretation' rather than a historical claim...but since you have presented no argument whatsoever as to how you can get an unbeliever to accept that the Bible is inerrant."
Prescinding your mendacious mischaracterization of my actual argument, I think the apostles would take issue with you sidelining the inspiration of Scripture to get unbelievers to accept the Bible. That's certainly not something they ever did.