Is it inconsistent and disingenuous for someone like me when dealing with skeptics to affirm my belief in inerrancy, but at the same time tell those skeptics that the truth of Christianity doesn't depend/hinge on the truth of inerrancy? It seems to me it's not. If I'm wrong, I'm open to correction. Also, it seems to be very useful to say that to skeptics because it deflates so much of their objections since many of them depends on the assumption of inerrancy.
I find that if I can convince skeptics that Christianity could be true even if inerrancy is false, it sometimes humbles them enough to be open to the possible truth of Christianity. Or it flusters them to the point that they don't know what to say next. Or they start backpedaling or conceding various points on issues they were insistent upon just a few moments ago.
Skeptics want to argue about and focus on inerrancy for various reasons.
- To create a barrier and buffer to protect their disbelief. - Because to defend inerrancy inductively and comprehensively, one would have to deal with each and every possible Biblical difficulty, discrepancy and apparent contradiction. Thus strengthening their buffer. Since such debates can go on indefinitely. - It distracts from the real issue. Namely, the issue of the truth of Christianity. - In order to address all or even just the main apparent contradictions/discrepancies/errors a Christian would have to know a vast amount of knowledge, and they know most Christians aren't that knowledgeable or even have the aptitude to use that knowledge to formulate responses.
So, it seems to me that by asserting that Christianity could be true even if inerrancy were false does two things. 1. It disarms to a great degree skeptics of their objections, and 2. also arms Christians with a way of dealing with both a.) their own personal doubts and b.) answering their skeptical neighbors.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the truth of Christianity" once you've separated Christianity from inerrancy. Is that really Christianity or is that just a blank label you can slap whatever attributes you'd like onto? As soon as you start to argue for a definition of Jesus, you're going to have to establish reasons for those definitions.
Most of those are going to be firmly grounded in the Old Testament.
I suppose another question I have is...why? It's not like defending inerrancy is extremely difficult or anything. If you know a few key tactics and a few key facts (mainly related to overthrowing the wooden-interpretation paradigm and letting the Bible speak for itself), you can thwart any atheist's attack on Scripture. Frankly, the arguments for inerrancy are of the same type and kind as the arguments for Christ as a whole; it would be inconsistent of a non-believer to accept them in regards to Christ but not in regards to Scripture. Or, to put it the other way, if they reject your arguments for inerrancy they'll use the same responses to reject the existence of Christ too.
Also, you said it "arms Christians with a way of dealing with both a.) their own personal doubts and b.) answering their skeptical neighbors." I don't think ignoring something is "dealing with" it, personally.
//Most of those are going to be firmly grounded in the Old Testament.//
Allowing for the bare logical possibility of Scriptural errancy for argument's sake doesn't necessitate a denial of the general reliability of the OT [or NT]. And so doesn't necessarily undermine a high Christology [seeing Christ's own high view of the OT Scriptures].
// It's not like defending inerrancy is extremely difficult or anything.//
There are hundreds of alleged Bible difficulties. If we play into the skeptics methods, s/he can have us address every problem one by one from the smallest to the largest (in that order) in order to insulate his disbelief. Possibly saving the most difficult ones for last as a refuge/festung. Though, usually, they'll pick ones they think are really tough.
One way to make them sweat is to ask them to list what they believe are the top three or five or ten Bible difficulties/errors/discrepancies they can think of and then challenge them that if you can answer them satisfactorily, will they be intellectually honest enough to admit that maybe Inerrancy is true or at least that the case for Errancy so weak that Christianity might be true. In my experience many skeptics won't take up the challenge because 1. in pride they're afraid it'll show their apologetical ignorance if they happen to pick weak examples, and 2. it seriously threatens their worldview because it gets very close to its core if they are actually honest enough in sharing those examples that are most problematic in their minds/hearts. With them plausibly resolved they'll have to deal with Christ's claims upon their lives.
//If you know a few key tactics and a few key facts (mainly related to overthrowing the wooden-interpretation paradigm and letting the Bible speak for itself), you can thwart any atheist's attack on Scripture.//
That works for 98% of atheists. But there are atheists out there who are knowledgeable enough that that approach doesn't work. I know this by experience. I've had in-depth Biblical debates with atheists that have gone on for days.
//Also, you said it "arms Christians with a way of dealing with both a.) their own personal doubts and b.) answering their skeptical neighbors." I don't think ignoring something is "dealing with" it, personally.//
I should have said explicitly what I left implicit. It arms Christians with a way of dealing with their own personal doubts during the interim of when the questions/doubts begin in their minds and their eventually resolving those problems through greater study/research. It can help them hang on until they find answers. Psychologically speaking (setting aside the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints for a moment), many apostates (temporary or permanent) get to a place where the contradictory tension between what their minds think and their hearts desire grows so intense that they can't handle it anymore and just give up. Concluding that if Christianity is true, then there wouldn't be so many difficulties and obstacles to belief. Though, as a Calvinist I think that doesn't follow at all. God uses the Bible difficulties to allow the non-elect to go their own way. Also, it honors God when we search out resolutions (Prov. 25:2). The common Arminian assumption that God does absolutely everything to encourage people to believe, is just false. I'll quote Pascal in a separate comment to where he makes some interesting points I agree with.
I agree with Peter Pike here. I don't see how it's a good apologetic strategy in general.
Also, I realize this may be a slippery slope argument, but even if they become a Christian I think it leaves a lot of room for some Christians to go the way of, say, Licona or Wallace.
If one rejects inerrancy even if only as an apologetic tactic, then it comes down to arguing for historical reliability. But then what makes one thing more or less historically reliable than another? External factors like archeological artifacts?
In addition, if we bracket inerrancy for apologetical purposes, I don't see how we can offer more than probabilities. For example, if the Bible is not inspired, then what's recorded in its pages is ultimately a matter of what's more probable who said what etc. So it seems to me.
//I don't see how we can offer more than probabilities.//
In general I have no problem with sub-arguments that argue for probability. Though my overarching presuppositional approach argues for certainty.
//For example, if the Bible is not inspired, then what's recorded in its pages is ultimately a matter of what's more probable who said what etc. So it seems to me. //
That assumes that inspiration necessitates inerrancy. I do think inspiration implies [and actually results in] inerrancy, but it doesn't logically necessitate it. I think it's logically possible for God to inspire fallible revelation (whether oral or written etc.). And that (logically speaking) God could sovereignly inspire both fallible and infallible revelation at different times for different purposes. What REALLY matters is whether the Bible and its message is [generally] true, not whether the Bible is free of errors [though, the latter is important in its own right, but to a lesser degree].
I understand where you're coming from (or at least I think I do). I think there are times when you might find that approach worthwhile, or at least specific individuals. In general, I would urge Christians to wrestle with the "hundreds of alleged Bible difficulties" that atheists can bring up, though. (I'd also add that while there are lots of examples--I'm not sure it's really hundreds, but lots--they still fall into a few broad categories, such as scribal errors, dual interpretations, and so on, so there's not really a whole lot overall that people need to learn.)
At the end of the day, evangelism isn't a cookie cutter though, so you have to know who you're talking to and adapt to them. That said, I think we also need to not give up prematurely when debating atheists. Be willing to address all of their hundreds of claims, and by doing so show they are being morons :-)
// In general, I would urge Christians to wrestle with the "hundreds of alleged Bible difficulties" that atheists can bring up, though.//
// That said, I think we also need to not give up prematurely when debating atheists. Be willing to address all of their hundreds of claims, and by doing so show they are being morons :-)//
If all apologists refuse to budge on inerrancy, will any of God’s elect not be won to Christ?
Now one might be tempted to respond, if nobody witnesses at all, will any of the elect not believe? Or if we use only an Arminian approach might any of the elect not believe? But those sort of responses miss the point. The point is, we needn’t check settled and sound Christian beliefs and practice at the door in order that we might win some.
Consider - just because God might be pleased to use Stanley’s approach over a more faithful approach does not undermine God’s ability to use a more unyielding, faithful approach. Our task is to give God less to work with. To give him only the best approach to give increase to.
Indeed, God may choose to use Stanley’s approach rather than one’s approach that won’t negotiate away inerrancy. But if absolutely nobody negotiates away inerrancy, then where might we begin to locate the tactical advantage of infidelity?
Tactical flexibility can only look attractive when people use it instead of a more faithful approach. But that’s to measure success on the wrong scale. That God is often pleased to draw a straight line with a crooked stick needn’t move us away from the straight path.
//The point is, we needn’t check settled and sound Christian beliefs and practice at the door in order that we might win some.//
I have many disagreements with Stanley's approach. Nevertheless, speaking for myself, I don't think pointing out the (ostensible) logical fact that Christianity could be true even were Inerrancy false amounts to checking a settled doctrine at the door. Since I'm not denying inerrancy. In fact, affirming it by faith.
//Consider - just because God might be pleased to use Stanley’s approach over a more faithful approach does not undermine God’s ability to use a more unyielding, faithful approach.//
If I'm right that it's logically consistent to claim that Christianity could be true even if Inerrancy were false is to be faithful in the use of logic, and to the God of logic.
//Our task is to give God less to work with. To give him only the best approach to give increase to. //
That seems pietistic. God also ordains means. Including our good or bad use of arguments and considerations of human psychology. By employing the strategy I referred to above, it exposes the skeptic (publicly and to himself) regarding whether he's really open minded regarding the truth of Christianity or not. Or whether he's close minded about it. Ultimately if God's efficacious grace isn't working on him, then he's ultimately close minded (per the assumption of Calvinism and total depravity). But we aren't to limit our evangelization based on the invisible gracious work of the Holy Spirit which we can't see.
//That God is often pleased to draw a straight line with a crooked stick needn’t move us away from the straight path. //
My approach goes along similar lines. Pointing out to the non-Christian that, logically speaking, God hypothetically could have used a fallible Revelation to reliably and sufficiently convey the message of salvation. The non-Christian should be shown that it's his own fault for rejecting a Revelation based on an assumption that insists that God must meet his standard of apparent inerrancy for him to be justified (forced?) to accept it. He wouldn't require inerrancy as a necessary component in ordinary human communication, why require that of God?
He should also be encouraged to consider that maybe Scripture is inerrant in ways he cannot see as a fallible creature. The non-Christian, if he's logical, should also be gracious enough to admit the fact that it's impossible to inductively prove inerrancy. Though, I'm not against using other deductive or transcendental arguments to argue for inerrancy. For example, I highly appreciate your synthesis of Clarkian and Van Tillian apologetical methods at your blog Reformed Apologist. I'm also very much in favor of stripping the non-Christian of rational and empirical tools to argue against Christianity. Something which Clarkian and Van Tillian presuppositionalism does very well. Given the metaphysical absence of a God like that found in Christianity, and the epistemological absence of a belief in such a God, the non-Christian can't justifiably reason or predicate on anything of importance. He might not even be able to consisteny claim consciousness or personal identity [per eliminative materialism and Buddhistic/Heracletian insights regarding the transience of existence]. Though, one can't use every apologetical technique in every encounter.
"I think it's logically possible for God to inspire fallible revelation (whether oral or written etc.)."
Welp! I suppose this is where we must part ways in our thinking.
"What REALLY matters is whether the Bible and its message is [generally] true, not whether the Bible is free of errors..."
Of course, inerrancy is consistent with biblical mss having "errors".
Lydia McGrew
"FWIW, there are many different lines of argument for historical reliability--both internal and external. Archaeology is only one."
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I was just giving a single example. As another example, I very much appreciate and value your revitalizing the argument from undesigned coincidences (and I purchased your book when it was published).
563 The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it.
577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.
574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.
// 562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.
576 God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.//
And one of my favorite Pascal quotes:
//Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.//
As a Van Tillian, I think there's a sense in which everything evidence for God's existence, but I don't think they are all equally evidential or persuasive. So, I don't think the above Pascal quotes necessarily contradict Van Til's insights on the clarity of God's existence in General Revelation and the sensus divinitatis/deitatis et cetera, or in Special Revelation.
“My approach goes along similar lines. Pointing out to the non-Christian that, logically speaking, God hypothetically could have used a fallible Revelation to reliably and sufficiently convey the message of salvation. The non-Christian should be shown that it's his own fault for rejecting a Revelation based on an assumption that insists that God must meet his standard of apparent inerrancy for him to be justified (forced?) to accept it. He wouldn't require inerrancy as a necessary component in ordinary human communication, why require that of God?”
I’ll try dealing with the substance on the other thread.
Is it inconsistent and disingenuous for someone like me when dealing with skeptics to affirm my belief in inerrancy, but at the same time tell those skeptics that the truth of Christianity doesn't depend/hinge on the truth of inerrancy? It seems to me it's not. If I'm wrong, I'm open to correction. Also, it seems to be very useful to say that to skeptics because it deflates so much of their objections since many of them depends on the assumption of inerrancy.
ReplyDeleteI find that if I can convince skeptics that Christianity could be true even if inerrancy is false, it sometimes humbles them enough to be open to the possible truth of Christianity. Or it flusters them to the point that they don't know what to say next. Or they start backpedaling or conceding various points on issues they were insistent upon just a few moments ago.
Skeptics want to argue about and focus on inerrancy for various reasons.
- To create a barrier and buffer to protect their disbelief.
- Because to defend inerrancy inductively and comprehensively, one would have to deal with each and every possible Biblical difficulty, discrepancy and apparent contradiction. Thus strengthening their buffer. Since such debates can go on indefinitely.
- It distracts from the real issue. Namely, the issue of the truth of Christianity.
- In order to address all or even just the main apparent contradictions/discrepancies/errors a Christian would have to know a vast amount of knowledge, and they know most Christians aren't that knowledgeable or even have the aptitude to use that knowledge to formulate responses.
So, it seems to me that by asserting that Christianity could be true even if inerrancy were false does two things. 1. It disarms to a great degree skeptics of their objections, and 2. also arms Christians with a way of dealing with both a.) their own personal doubts and b.) answering their skeptical neighbors.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the truth of Christianity" once you've separated Christianity from inerrancy. Is that really Christianity or is that just a blank label you can slap whatever attributes you'd like onto? As soon as you start to argue for a definition of Jesus, you're going to have to establish reasons for those definitions.
DeleteMost of those are going to be firmly grounded in the Old Testament.
I suppose another question I have is...why? It's not like defending inerrancy is extremely difficult or anything. If you know a few key tactics and a few key facts (mainly related to overthrowing the wooden-interpretation paradigm and letting the Bible speak for itself), you can thwart any atheist's attack on Scripture. Frankly, the arguments for inerrancy are of the same type and kind as the arguments for Christ as a whole; it would be inconsistent of a non-believer to accept them in regards to Christ but not in regards to Scripture. Or, to put it the other way, if they reject your arguments for inerrancy they'll use the same responses to reject the existence of Christ too.
Also, you said it "arms Christians with a way of dealing with both a.) their own personal doubts and b.) answering their skeptical neighbors." I don't think ignoring something is "dealing with" it, personally.
Delete//Most of those are going to be firmly grounded in the Old Testament.//
DeleteAllowing for the bare logical possibility of Scriptural errancy for argument's sake doesn't necessitate a denial of the general reliability of the OT [or NT]. And so doesn't necessarily undermine a high Christology [seeing Christ's own high view of the OT Scriptures].
// It's not like defending inerrancy is extremely difficult or anything.//
There are hundreds of alleged Bible difficulties. If we play into the skeptics methods, s/he can have us address every problem one by one from the smallest to the largest (in that order) in order to insulate his disbelief. Possibly saving the most difficult ones for last as a refuge/festung. Though, usually, they'll pick ones they think are really tough.
One way to make them sweat is to ask them to list what they believe are the top three or five or ten Bible difficulties/errors/discrepancies they can think of and then challenge them that if you can answer them satisfactorily, will they be intellectually honest enough to admit that maybe Inerrancy is true or at least that the case for Errancy so weak that Christianity might be true. In my experience many skeptics won't take up the challenge because 1. in pride they're afraid it'll show their apologetical ignorance if they happen to pick weak examples, and 2. it seriously threatens their worldview because it gets very close to its core if they are actually honest enough in sharing those examples that are most problematic in their minds/hearts. With them plausibly resolved they'll have to deal with Christ's claims upon their lives.
//If you know a few key tactics and a few key facts (mainly related to overthrowing the wooden-interpretation paradigm and letting the Bible speak for itself), you can thwart any atheist's attack on Scripture.//
That works for 98% of atheists. But there are atheists out there who are knowledgeable enough that that approach doesn't work. I know this by experience. I've had in-depth Biblical debates with atheists that have gone on for days.
//Also, you said it "arms Christians with a way of dealing with both a.) their own personal doubts and b.) answering their skeptical neighbors." I don't think ignoring something is "dealing with" it, personally.//
I should have said explicitly what I left implicit. It arms Christians with a way of dealing with their own personal doubts during the interim of when the questions/doubts begin in their minds and their eventually resolving those problems through greater study/research. It can help them hang on until they find answers. Psychologically speaking (setting aside the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints for a moment), many apostates (temporary or permanent) get to a place where the contradictory tension between what their minds think and their hearts desire grows so intense that they can't handle it anymore and just give up. Concluding that if Christianity is true, then there wouldn't be so many difficulties and obstacles to belief. Though, as a Calvinist I think that doesn't follow at all. God uses the Bible difficulties to allow the non-elect to go their own way. Also, it honors God when we search out resolutions (Prov. 25:2). The common Arminian assumption that God does absolutely everything to encourage people to believe, is just false. I'll quote Pascal in a separate comment to where he makes some interesting points I agree with.
I agree with Peter Pike here. I don't see how it's a good apologetic strategy in general.
DeleteAlso, I realize this may be a slippery slope argument, but even if they become a Christian I think it leaves a lot of room for some Christians to go the way of, say, Licona or Wallace.
If one rejects inerrancy even if only as an apologetic tactic, then it comes down to arguing for historical reliability. But then what makes one thing more or less historically reliable than another? External factors like archeological artifacts?
DeleteIn addition, if we bracket inerrancy for apologetical purposes, I don't see how we can offer more than probabilities. For example, if the Bible is not inspired, then what's recorded in its pages is ultimately a matter of what's more probable who said what etc. So it seems to me.
Delete//I don't see how we can offer more than probabilities.//
DeleteIn general I have no problem with sub-arguments that argue for probability. Though my overarching presuppositional approach argues for certainty.
//For example, if the Bible is not inspired, then what's recorded in its pages is ultimately a matter of what's more probable who said what etc. So it seems to me. //
That assumes that inspiration necessitates inerrancy. I do think inspiration implies [and actually results in] inerrancy, but it doesn't logically necessitate it. I think it's logically possible for God to inspire fallible revelation (whether oral or written etc.). And that (logically speaking) God could sovereignly inspire both fallible and infallible revelation at different times for different purposes. What REALLY matters is whether the Bible and its message is [generally] true, not whether the Bible is free of errors [though, the latter is important in its own right, but to a lesser degree].
Hello again, Annoyed :-)
DeleteI understand where you're coming from (or at least I think I do). I think there are times when you might find that approach worthwhile, or at least specific individuals. In general, I would urge Christians to wrestle with the "hundreds of alleged Bible difficulties" that atheists can bring up, though. (I'd also add that while there are lots of examples--I'm not sure it's really hundreds, but lots--they still fall into a few broad categories, such as scribal errors, dual interpretations, and so on, so there's not really a whole lot overall that people need to learn.)
At the end of the day, evangelism isn't a cookie cutter though, so you have to know who you're talking to and adapt to them. That said, I think we also need to not give up prematurely when debating atheists. Be willing to address all of their hundreds of claims, and by doing so show they are being morons :-)
FWIW, there are many different lines of argument for historical reliability--both internal and external. Archaeology is only one.
Delete// In general, I would urge Christians to wrestle with the "hundreds of alleged Bible difficulties" that atheists can bring up, though.//
Delete// That said, I think we also need to not give up prematurely when debating atheists. Be willing to address all of their hundreds of claims, and by doing so show they are being morons :-)//
Agreed. And I do.
If all apologists refuse to budge on inerrancy, will any of God’s elect not be won to Christ?
DeleteNow one might be tempted to respond, if nobody witnesses at all, will any of the elect not believe? Or if we use only an Arminian approach might any of the elect not believe? But those sort of responses miss the point. The point is, we needn’t check settled and sound Christian beliefs and practice at the door in order that we might win some.
Consider - just because God might be pleased to use Stanley’s approach over a more faithful approach does not undermine God’s ability to use a more unyielding, faithful approach. Our task is to give God less to work with. To give him only the best approach to give increase to.
Indeed, God may choose to use Stanley’s approach rather than one’s approach that won’t negotiate away inerrancy. But if absolutely nobody negotiates away inerrancy, then where might we begin to locate the tactical advantage of infidelity?
Tactical flexibility can only look attractive when people use it instead of a more faithful approach. But that’s to measure success on the wrong scale. That God is often pleased to draw a straight line with a crooked stick needn’t move us away from the straight path.
//The point is, we needn’t check settled and sound Christian beliefs and practice at the door in order that we might win some.//
DeleteI have many disagreements with Stanley's approach. Nevertheless, speaking for myself, I don't think pointing out the (ostensible) logical fact that Christianity could be true even were Inerrancy false amounts to checking a settled doctrine at the door. Since I'm not denying inerrancy. In fact, affirming it by faith.
//Consider - just because God might be pleased to use Stanley’s approach over a more faithful approach does not undermine God’s ability to use a more unyielding, faithful approach.//
If I'm right that it's logically consistent to claim that Christianity could be true even if Inerrancy were false is to be faithful in the use of logic, and to the God of logic.
//Our task is to give God less to work with. To give him only the best approach to give increase to. //
That seems pietistic. God also ordains means. Including our good or bad use of arguments and considerations of human psychology. By employing the strategy I referred to above, it exposes the skeptic (publicly and to himself) regarding whether he's really open minded regarding the truth of Christianity or not. Or whether he's close minded about it. Ultimately if God's efficacious grace isn't working on him, then he's ultimately close minded (per the assumption of Calvinism and total depravity). But we aren't to limit our evangelization based on the invisible gracious work of the Holy Spirit which we can't see.
//That God is often pleased to draw a straight line with a crooked stick needn’t move us away from the straight path. //
My approach goes along similar lines. Pointing out to the non-Christian that, logically speaking, God hypothetically could have used a fallible Revelation to reliably and sufficiently convey the message of salvation. The non-Christian should be shown that it's his own fault for rejecting a Revelation based on an assumption that insists that God must meet his standard of apparent inerrancy for him to be justified (forced?) to accept it. He wouldn't require inerrancy as a necessary component in ordinary human communication, why require that of God?
He should also be encouraged to consider that maybe Scripture is inerrant in ways he cannot see as a fallible creature. The non-Christian, if he's logical, should also be gracious enough to admit the fact that it's impossible to inductively prove inerrancy. Though, I'm not against using other deductive or transcendental arguments to argue for inerrancy. For example, I highly appreciate your synthesis of Clarkian and Van Tillian apologetical methods at your blog Reformed Apologist. I'm also very much in favor of stripping the non-Christian of rational and empirical tools to argue against Christianity. Something which Clarkian and Van Tillian presuppositionalism does very well. Given the metaphysical absence of a God like that found in Christianity, and the epistemological absence of a belief in such a God, the non-Christian can't justifiably reason or predicate on anything of importance. He might not even be able to consisteny claim consciousness or personal identity [per eliminative materialism and Buddhistic/Heracletian insights regarding the transience of existence]. Though, one can't use every apologetical technique in every encounter.
Annoyed Pinoy
Delete"I think it's logically possible for God to inspire fallible revelation (whether oral or written etc.)."
Welp! I suppose this is where we must part ways in our thinking.
"What REALLY matters is whether the Bible and its message is [generally] true, not whether the Bible is free of errors..."
Of course, inerrancy is consistent with biblical mss having "errors".
Lydia McGrew
"FWIW, there are many different lines of argument for historical reliability--both internal and external. Archaeology is only one."
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I was just giving a single example. As another example, I very much appreciate and value your revitalizing the argument from undesigned coincidences (and I purchased your book when it was published).
Annoyed Pinoy
DeleteYou might be interested to see Steve Hays has a response to what you've said above.
Thanks Epistle of Dude.
Deletetypo correction: "He should also be encouraged to consider that maybe Scripture is inerrant in ways he cannot see as a fallible [FINITE] creature."
Pascal quotes I have some agreement with:
ReplyDelete563 The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it.
577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.
574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.
// 562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.
576 God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.//
And one of my favorite Pascal quotes:
//Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.//
As a Van Tillian, I think there's a sense in which everything evidence for God's existence, but I don't think they are all equally evidential or persuasive. So, I don't think the above Pascal quotes necessarily contradict Van Til's insights on the clarity of God's existence in General Revelation and the sensus divinitatis/deitatis et cetera, or in Special Revelation.
“My approach goes along similar lines. Pointing out to the non-Christian that, logically speaking, God hypothetically could have used a fallible Revelation to reliably and sufficiently convey the message of salvation. The non-Christian should be shown that it's his own fault for rejecting a Revelation based on an assumption that insists that God must meet his standard of apparent inerrancy for him to be justified (forced?) to accept it. He wouldn't require inerrancy as a necessary component in ordinary human communication, why require that of God?”
ReplyDeleteI’ll try dealing with the substance on the other thread.