Comments on: A Different Kind of Evangelical or Betraying Evangelicalism?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:58:00 +0000

Ah! Now that I have the time to write, I can actually respond to this:
“Forgot to answer Victor's question about the slippery slope: “If we assume that Scripture is errant, then we would have to conclude that God is errant as well. (We are arguing about the original manuscripts, not the Bible we have today). One could argue that because it was written by men, it was men who are errant, not God. Ok, then God just isn't as powerful as He is made out to be from the Scriptures” This seems, to me, quite a leap. We know that God doesn't micromanage us; He allows human error to exist; he allows evil to continue; He allows false declarations to be made about Him by false prophets and other such folk.”
It's only a leap in your theological mindset since you don't believe “God doesn't micromange us.” Sorry, but if God isn't in control of the little things, then He's not in control of the big things. But since you presuppose a God who doesn't micromanage, it is easy to see why you think that the original manuscripts contain error.
But I have to ask, why do you think He doesn't micromanage? How do you arrive to that theological understanding? Did you derive it from Scripture? But you know, if you believe Scripture is errant, perhaps your understanding is in error. After all, an errant Scripture could breed an errant understanding. Then again, how would you know anything is errant without a standard that is assumed to be inerrant? Your understanding has no solid footing and your presupposition undermines it all.
“He wants us to walk with Him and find our way by His light, not by second-hand information.”
Are you implying that Scripture is second-hand information? Clarify please.
“”If I can't trust that God has breathed an inerrant oringal manuscript, how can I trust that He has not erred in (fill in the blank)?” This seems to me like another leap. I know I can trust God because he has proven trustworthy in my life.
Let's see here. You can trust God because He has proven trustworthy in your life. Ok. How? By what standard can you say that He has proven His trustworthiness? I can easily say Scripture because I have faith in the inerrancy and infallibility of His Word, but under your errant view of Scripture, you cannot. You have nothing to measure God's trustworthiness because the very standard you would use contains “small errors and contradictions”.
“The Bible has small errors and contradictions because humans transcribed it, so I look for the spirit, and I read the words of Christ which are given in four variant Gospels that agree in spirit, though not in the letter.”
I never thought I would ask another Christian this, but could you please point out Scripture's contradictions? I can agree with you that there may be small errors in the Bibles we have today. But that is not we are arguing about here. We have been talking about original manuscripts. If the original manuscripts did contain errors, then no one would have a clue as to what is right and what is wrong since such transmission of errors would continue or be compounded in its future transcriptions. As I said before, you could never really know if God is trustworthy if the original manuscripts did contain error.
Now are you implying that each and every detail (“letter”) must be the same in each Gospel in order for them to be considered inerrant/non-contradictory? Just because one witness says one thing, and another says something else, does that always mean contradiction? If I have 5 fingers, do I not have 2 fingers? If I said I only had 2 fingers on my right hand, then claim that I have 5 fingers on my right hand, then that would be a contradiction. Is this the kind of contradiction you find between the Gospel accounts?
“Also, when I read the Bible, I think and pray.”
As do I.
“When I hear Scripture read and preached in church, I think and pray.”
As do I.
“Sometimes I disagree with the preaching; do I then leave Christ because one person spoke in a way I could not find credible?”
Same here, but if you are trying to relate this to the original manuscripts being in error, you still have no footing. You still have to prove that because men transcribed the originals that they would contain error. At best, it is an opinion that presupposes a narrow view of God's sovereignty that cannot be justified by Scripture, whether one is an errantist or not.
“So many Christian writers testify to the need for each believer to do their thinking in relationship to the Lord, testing the spirits (and words) to see whether they be from God: I find that credible!”
Amen. But how do you do that without any faith in the inerrancy of the original Scriptures? If my wife speaks in error, is my faith in her speaking truth justified? I don't see how you can reconcile your faith and trust in God with an errant view of the original manuscripts. If God can't even keep His original transcribers from making errors in their transmission of His word, it makes me wonder how much more He cannot do in preserving His word.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:04:00 +0000

Steve, thanks for the extremely interesting conversation! I so love to have people who disagree with me discussing issues like this one on the blog. It's all far, far more interesting when people disagree! I like being challenged to think more deeply. Since this particular discussion has become so detailed and the post is fading into the past, I decided to create a new post for it. So if you're interested, after you answer my above question here you can continue the discussion there.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:01:00 +0000

Steve, I really am interested in hearing your response to this question I posted earlier. I think it will help me understand where you're coming from:
“It's my understanding that the Jews of Paul's time had a different view of Scripture than what you're suggesting. [Here's the question:] Do you think we should try to understand Paul on his own terms from his own context, or that it's better to interpret his words how we see fit from our position today?”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:57:00 +0000

Steve, this column is getting ridiculously skinny! I'm moving the discussion to the bottom of this page. See there for my question…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:11:00 +0000

Forgot to answer Victor's question about the slippery slope: “If we assume that Scripture is errant, then we would have to conclude that God is errant as well. (We are arguing about the original manuscripts, not the Bible we have today). One could argue that because it was written by men, it was men who are errant, not God. Ok, then God just isn't as powerful as He is made out to be from the Scriptures” This seems, to me, quite a leap. We know that God doesn't micromanage us; He allows human error to exist; he allows evil to continue; He allows false declarations to be made about Him by false prophets and other such folk. He wants us to walk with Him and find our way by His light, not by second-hand information.
“If I can't trust that God has breathed an inerrant oringal manuscript, how can I trust that He has not erred in (fill in the blank)?” This seems to me like another leap. I know I can trust God because he has proven trustworthy in my life. The Bible has small errors and contradictions because humans transcribed it, so I look for the spirit, and I read the words of Christ which are given in four variant Gospels that agree in spirit, though not in the letter. Also, when I read the Bible, I think and pray. When I hear Scripture read and preached in church, I think and pray. Sometimes I disagree with the preaching; do I then leave Christ because one person spoke in a way I could not find credible? So many Christian writers testify to the need for each believer to do their thinking in relationship to the Lord, testing the spirits (and words) to see whether they be from God: I find that credible!
Vicky

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:56:00 +0000

As Steve said, above, the interpretation of “God-breathed” is at issue; he rightly points out why this term cannot be assumed to mean that all Scripture is inerrant. Words God spoke are obviously the words of God, but they were transcribed. Also, Paul is so forthright as to differentiate between when he speaks for himself, and when he speaks “from God” –and he does this in Scripture, so we know that Paul is differentiating between more-or-less fallible sources right there. Finally, Scripture is of use “for doctrine, for reproof” in our own walk, with our own recourse to prayer as we read, and our own governance from God.
My point: Scripture contains the word of God but it is not God. We are not given license, anywhere, to make an interpretation and then tell others that “X is true because I interpret Scripture to say X and Scripture is inerrant, therefore X must be true.”
The problem, I think, is the fine line, or the grey area, between the word and the human reading, the mind's interpretive act.
Vicky

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:58:00 +0000

More on theopneustos. You're trying to read 'God-breathed' as 'God-spoken.' But if Paul intended 'God-spoken' by 'God-breathed,' he was quite careless. The terms aren't semantically equivalent, so why try to force them into equivalence? Whatever the entirety of Paul's concept of 'God-breathed' was, we cannot say. Thankfully, though, he did not leave us confused, since he immediately goes on to specify precisely what it is about being 'god-breathed' that he thinks is important: “Useful for…” If that's good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me.
Steve

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:50:00 +0000

Amy:
“through those particular writers of Scripture?”
Actually those verses don't say anything about the “writers of scripture.” What the verses you cite affirm is that the utterances of particular individuals were utterances of God. I affirm this too. I distinguish between those utterances and scripture in toto.
Indeed, we also have to distinguish between those original utterances, to which the predicate “spoken by god” properly applies, and results of the processes of oral transmission, inscription, copying, editing, and translation. (In regard to the HB, this makes the notion of an “autographic text” hopeless.)
But in those cases where a NT author/speaker affirms the content of a particular passage from the HB, I am happy to affirm that that the content is accurate as well. In fact, in general I assume that the content of the Bible is accurate, but this assumption is defeasible, and defeasible on a verse-by-verse basis.
“Since the Bible does say that all Scripture is “God-breathed,” the question really hinges on what is meant by this phrase. I think it's reasonable to assume it means “spoken by God through the prophets” since that is how Scripture is described in the above instances, among others.”
I don't at all find that reasonable to assume. If the question hinges on what that phrase means, inerrantists are in trouble. There is no verse in the Bible that says, “theopneustos means 'spoken by god through the prophets.'” You're free to speculate and infer as much as you want on the meaning of 'theopneustos', but to base your defense of inerrancy on such speculations can hardly be considered convincing. Further, the formula you offer fails to distinguish between the contributions to the content of scripture which are from “prophets” and those which are from nameless, faceless scribes. Nor can we say “scripture is described in the above instances” in the manner you say. In the above instances, scripture isn't being described at all, but rather particular “prophetic” utterances which are recorded in scripture. Here's the part-whole confusion again.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 07:17:00 +0000

Good to have you back Victor!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 07:07:00 +0000

“How valid is the concept of inerrancy of Scripture to your daily walk with Christ?”
As Amy had reasoned from Scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all Scripture is God-breathed. If we assume that Scripture is errant, then we would have to conclude that God is errant as well. (We are arguing about the original manuscripts, not the Bible we have today). One could argue that because it was written by men, it was men who are errant, not God. Ok, then God just isn't as powerful as He is made out to be from the Scriptures.
Can such implications sit well with the Christian? It is one thing for us to make an error in interpretation or translation, but it is quite another to implicate God as erroneous in something that He has “breathed”, or that He was too weak to prevent errors from creeping in.
So, yes, inerrancy of Scripture plays a major role in my walk with Christ. If I can't trust that God has breathed an inerrant oringal manuscript, how can I trust that He has not erred in (fill in the blank)?