Fall 2008 Online Certificate Students:
View all sessions below. Then log all your comments, questions, discussion question answers, criticisms, or thoughts below.
NOTE:
This is not the place for general discussion and questions. Go to the foyer for general discussion and refer to the FAQ on the right for question. Time spent in the comments section will apply toward your one hour of community time per week. To download audio sessions, visit the course homepage on the TTP site. The next session will be posted each Wed.
_____________________________
Do the Scriptures contain errors? If so, can they still be said to be inspired? How do we harmonize the difficult portions of Scripture that seem to disagree? This session will familiarize the student with the often misunderstood and abused doctrine of inerrancy. Evangelicals have in many respects been defined by this doctrine. The student should learn to distinguish between the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility, understanding that they are no longer synonymous as is often supposed. During this session, the student will struggle with many of the various passages of Scripture that seem to disagree with one another, learning that these “discrepancies” usually are supposed because of faulty assumptions pertaining to one’s hermeneutic. The student will also struggle with the difference in saying that the doctrine of inerrancy demands that the Scripture contain the exact words of its subjects and saying the doctrine of inerrancy allows for summaries and paraphrases of its subjects.
Does the Bible err? [17:43m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download How is inerrancy different from infallability? [21:08m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Chicago Statment of Biblical Inerrancy [18:06m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download What are the objections and responses to inerrancy? [5:23m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Working through some examples of alledged contradictions [15:19m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Powered by FireStats
October 21st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
1. Because the issues are a problem now, not as much back then. Postmodernism has brought out the issue that everything is up to me to decide–I am my own god, etc. In the early church, people were still speaking from first or second hand. There were a lot of people who witnessed Christ’s ministry on earth. I think our ability to communicate has caused more issues with inerrancy. Before, people didn’t communicate as much with people outside of the family. Now, we are constantly associating with other religions and cultures. Back to postmodernism, though. People are all about taking the parts they like and leaving the rest. They make their own religion. Inerrancy interferes with that freedom. Inerrancy declares that you must take all the Scripture. You can’t pick and choose.
2. It’s important to know where you stand on inerrancy; especially, as this becomes more of an issue within our culture and day. It is also important because without it you would have questions and frustrations and divisions–even more than what we already have.
3. The Scriptures can not be infallible without being inerrant. To be errant means to have error. How can the Scripture be without fault and infallible if they have errors. In the Chicago Statement they said that you could only distinguish infallible from inerrant, but you can not separate them. God doesn’t err and the Bible is God’s Word; therefore, the Bible can not have errors.
4. It seems to be situational. There are two different meanings. Verse 4 is about not choosing to act like or be like a foolish person. Verse 5 is about the fool; how the fool should be shown his folly and humbled.
5. Christ can do things that we should not. Christ doesn’t sin. Christ can call someone out, but we are called to love each other. Christ had righteous anger. Our anger is hardly ever righteous. We, in Matthew 5, are angry at our brother. In Matthew 5, it seems to that the words are more hostile and violent; maybe leading to someone’s physical harm. In Matthew 23, Christ is speaking truth and trying to humble (go back to #4) the fools that are misleading others.
6. I think this one has to do with the context. Humans are not always truthful. The servant in 2 Samuel was probably trying to get a reward for his report. In 1 Samuel, it was Saul’s actual story. The 2 Samuel account could also have to do with perspective. The servant’s story seemed to be missing details, but these details could have been confused from a distance. I believe the servant was lying, but that does not mean that the Scripture has an error.
7. In Genesis 2, the Lord was speaking to Adam. He could have meant farming plant types. It also could be talking about the Garden of Eden and not referring to the whole world. Genesis 1 seems to be the outline and Genesis 2 comes back with the details.
8. I’m still not clear on distinguishing a difference between inerrancy and infallibility. I also didn’t realize there were all the differences that seem to be contradictions. When I started this lesson, I was thinking that there wouldn’t be much to challenge, but I was wrong.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
1. It it reasonable to believe simple because all things believed are not always stated. If you never ask the question, you can’t assume that we don’t have the answer.
2. I believe the doctrine of inerrancy is very important. If we say that the bible is the Word of God and we say that it in Inspired by God. Is essence this is what God wanted recorded. This is what God wants us to know. It seems to me that if God could not preserve His communication the reliability of it can be questionable.
3. Let me restate the question. Can the scriptures be true in all that it teaches without error and fail in matters of faith and practice. Absolutely not.
4.
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.
The alleged discrepancy is found in the apparent double seeking. We are told both to answer and not answer the fool according to his folly.
I would say, answer a fool so he doesn’t think is foolishness is correct but don’t act like the fool when you do it.
5. The alleged discrepancy here is that Jesus calls them fool in Matthew 23:17 and the instruction in 5:22.
I think one speaks of abusive language and lashing out anger and with the intent to insult. The other is to me the equivalent of telling someone that they have done a foolish thing with the intent of bringing correction. One is punitive and one is corrective.
6. The alleged discrepancy would be the variance in the telling of the story.
Since I just watched vantage point again, this doesn’t seem to bother me at all. Here you have the same story told from two different vantage points. One extends the story but it doesn’t contradict the story. Then again is it true that he died because of falling on his sword. We know he would have bleed out and died anyway.
7. Again here I would say it’s as simple as vantage points. One seems to give more detail than the other. It’s as if I am asked my name and I give the first and last. Another time and I am asked and I give middle and all. No error just more detail.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Marsha Johnson
B & H Session #8
Fall 2008
First define: a) inerrancy & b) infallibility
a) Inerrancy: CMP Session 8 notes “The doctrinal teaching that the Scriptures in the original manuscripts are true in all that they teach, and thus without error.” CMP video “reasoned inerrancy.” Grudem “Inerrancy has to do with truthfulness, not with the degree of precision with which events are reported.” D. G. Bloesch in “Essentials in Evangelical Theology’ quotes the Lausanne Covenant as saying “We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Again Bloesch, he states “The Scriptures are entirely trustworthy in what they purport to give us, but this trustworthiness is a property not simply of the letter of the Bible but of the Spirit, the primary author of the Scriptures.” The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy in Article XIII equates inerrancy to “the complete truthfulness of Scripture.”
b) Infallibility: CMP Session 8 notes “The doctrinal teaching…that the Scriptures cannot fail in matters of faith and practice.” The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy in Article XI states “We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters.” Grudem “God’s Words Are the Ultimate Standard of Truth.” Jesus Christ recorded in John 17:17 “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth”. God, in words spoken through Balaam, Num 23:19 “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent”. The Penguin English Dictionary, 2nd Edition “infallible adj incapable of error; not liable to fail; known to be effective;” NOTE: “The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy in Article XI Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.”
1a)How does the rise of liberalism and the higher criticism of the Scriptures make it understandable that inerrancy would not be articulated until now? (liberalism as defined by Grudem, p. 17, Systematic Theology “people who deny the absolute truthfulness of the Bible, or who do not think the words of the Bible to be God’s very words.”) also (higher criticism I define as: greater in detail, longer in years, greater theological knowledge base, extant manuscripts, better equipment, etc. used by Textual Critics such as Dan Wallace) The Age of Reason made way for the tearing down of the Establishment in the ’60’s, civil disobedience in the ’70’s and total disrespect for all authority we find ourselves in now. It follows that uneducated and educated people would carry this thinking of denying absolute truthfulness over into Christian Theology and the Bible itself. If the Bible is not TRUTH, then it is not God Breathed, if it is not God Breathed it is a Folk Book of Virtues. That makes way for the mind jump of God is dead, non-existent or a hoax. If a person cares whether the Bible may be trustworthy they are going to search Scriptures (hopefully) and consult Masters, Church Fathers and research of Textual Criticism. In the time that Jesus was teaching his disciples they had God incarnate explaining his teachings and even correcting interpretations of OT. Then scholarly men who were taught by men who met Christ claim the writings of Paul first then the Gospels and finally the whole to be Scriptures God Breathed. The Church fathers of the first several hundred years debated then upheld the absolute truthfulness of Scriptures we have today and the words of the Bible to be God’s very words.
1b) Yes, Scriptures were always believed, with few real exceptions, to be the Word of God. Then came the age of Reason and with it liberalism.
2) How important do I believe the doctrine of inerrancy is. It is very important. If it is construed to be false then Scriptures become a house of cards. If one teaching is false, then the whole of Scriptures are questionable. God breathed the words into being. This we must believe.
3)Differences between inerrancy & infallibility. Inerrancy has to do with “truthfulness, not with the degree of precision with which events are reported.” Grudem in “Systematic Theology” further says of inerrancy that “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.” He also says that “a statement can be ungrammatical but still be entirely true.” So inerrancy has to do with the meaning of a passage. Infallibility has to do with the doctrine that Scriptures cannot fail. The Bible is true in faith & practice. To what the Bible speaks, it does so with complete TRUTH.
4)Explain alleged discrepancy: Proverbs 26:4-5. I don’t see this as error but as sarcasm or a “tongue-in-cheek” slam on the foolish person, that would have been immediately recognized by the Israelites at that time, maybe even today. Peterson in “The Message paraphrases the passage this way: vs 4 “Don’t respond to the stupidity of a fool, you’ll only look foolish yourself. vs 5 Answer a fool in simple terms so he doesn’t get a swelled head.” The phrase in the ESV uses the phrase “according to his folly,” and Peterson says “the stupidity of a fool”, I think Peterson is clearer and closer to the meaning.
5)Matt 5:22; Matt 23:17. I think the first verse is saying don’t give an angry response, don’t “put down”someone because of his errors. This seems like more of a teaching statement. The second verse seems to say to the Pharisees that their thinking is foolish. It seems more like a reprimand for incorrectly putting a higher value on gold than on the temple of God.
6)Sam. 31 and II Sam. 1. These two accounts are quite likely two different views on the same event.
7)Gen 1 & Gen 2, creation story. I think these two stories may be two different views also, chapter 1 is more scientific, orderly and chapter 2 is more like literature, a story.
8)Most challenging? I have never dealt with the arguments of error in Scripture. I just assumed i/we did not know what God meant and we will find out upon further discoveries of science or when we meet Him face to face. However the discussion of possible errors and the questions that forced me to resolve the “errors” in questions four through seven have been very challenging because I have had to answer them in a way that is theologically acceptable to me in light of my new forming theology. I believe I will be a better witness now.