This last week I spent several hours mulling over and researching the debate over biblical inerrancy. Half of the paper was a critique of Stephen L. Andrew's article on the subject (check it out here) and the second half was my personal, supported theological stance. The debate we were looking at was not whether the Bible is inerrant, but, within the Evangelical Christian realm, to what extent do people believe it is inerrant. It was both tedious and interesting at the same time. In the end, I didn't change my stance much, but did have to consider how important the topic is. Can we have faith in God without His inspired Word? Can we live a daily, godly life without its guidance? Is an inspired, inerrant Bible necessary for witnessing and conversion? It's possible His Word goes hand-in-hand with our actions.
I lean toward it being a necessity. Written scripture has been available and used for thousands of years. The apostles, Jesus, and O.T. writers all referenced other scripture and the law repeatedly. The Bible says that all scripture is useful for convicting, encouraging, and equipping us. And even though God is capable of guiding His people without it, He has clearly chosen to reveal Himself and His will in written form.
I'm also learning that even though a lot of the subjects we discuss in this Theology class don't actually reach to practical living, studying and exploring them has encouraged me and built my faith up.
I pasted my article below.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Critique
Critique of Biblical Inerrancy by Stephen L. Andrew
Critique
The purpose of Stephen Andrew’s article is to examine the arguments supporting inerrancy and to determine the validity of each argument by both sides.
Andrew held at least three presuppositions: the existence of God to inspire the Bible, the fact of resurrection and the Hebrew scriptural canon. The first and second are reasonable because those involved question neither. To presuppose which Hebrew scripture Jesus attributed authority to may be invalid since it is vital to the Epistemological and Biblical Arguments.
Andrew basically eliminated the Slippery-Slope and Historical Arguments based on reasoning and he intends to prove inerrancy through valid support. He explained that many inerrantists have wrongly defended the Epistemological argument deductively and showed that the Historical Argument only supports inerrancy as a historical norm of Christian orthodoxy.
I see two major strengths to Andrew’s dealing with the Epistemological Argument. The first was responding to Davis’s criticism with an inductive argument rather than a deductive one. The second strength was in his final rebuttal. Andrew showed that Davis raises human reason onto a pedestal, along side the Spirit, for revealing truth, which directly violates the uses for reason which Dr. Towns described in the lesson.
The Biblical Argument presented by Andrew seemed weak. Andrew stated 2 Peter 1:20-21 referred to “Scripture” but actually only speaks of prophecy. Combining that with verses stating God never lies only proves all prophecies to be inerrant. Later, Andrew references Matthew 5:18 which in the context also seems to pertain to fulfillment of prophesy.
Andrew’s rebuttals to the attacks on the Biblical Argument are logical and complete. Andrew thoroughly addressed the counter-arguments and showed them to be false or invalid.
Personal Conclusion
I believe in inerrancy of the bible. There were several quotes in the article that I think substantiate how important inerrancy is. The clearest one was Clark Pinnock, “Inerrancy is to be regarded as an essential concomitant of the doctrine of inspiration, a necessary inference drawn from the fact that Scripture is God’s Word… If one believes the Scripture to be god’s Word, he cannot fail to believe it inerrant. …” I agree with Andrew’s intended Biblical Argument, however, I believe he arrived at the conclusion incorrectly. As I stated above, 2 Peter 1:20-21 limits God’s inspiration to just prophecy. However, Paul clearly teaches in 2 Timothy 3:16 that God inspires all scripture, as well as describing what God’s intended use for scripture is. Linking 2 Timothy 3:16, with Numbers 23:19 that claims God can’t lie, and Matt 5:18, “one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law” points to clear and concrete inerrancy of scripture. The logic would be (1) God inspired every word of Scripture, (2) God intended every word (even letters) to be written, and (3) God can’t lie. Thus, every word of the Bible must be inerrant.
This being said, the question remains as to which scriptures Jesus was referring to. The New Testament authenticity, validity, and accuracy are not brought into question by this issue. However, since the Hebrew scriptures were not canonized completely until after Jesus’ ascension Jesus may have only been referring to the books that were accepted by the Jews at the time, the books that He specifically quoted or referenced, or something less than both.
Critique
The purpose of Stephen Andrew’s article is to examine the arguments supporting inerrancy and to determine the validity of each argument by both sides.
Andrew held at least three presuppositions: the existence of God to inspire the Bible, the fact of resurrection and the Hebrew scriptural canon. The first and second are reasonable because those involved question neither. To presuppose which Hebrew scripture Jesus attributed authority to may be invalid since it is vital to the Epistemological and Biblical Arguments.
Andrew basically eliminated the Slippery-Slope and Historical Arguments based on reasoning and he intends to prove inerrancy through valid support. He explained that many inerrantists have wrongly defended the Epistemological argument deductively and showed that the Historical Argument only supports inerrancy as a historical norm of Christian orthodoxy.
I see two major strengths to Andrew’s dealing with the Epistemological Argument. The first was responding to Davis’s criticism with an inductive argument rather than a deductive one. The second strength was in his final rebuttal. Andrew showed that Davis raises human reason onto a pedestal, along side the Spirit, for revealing truth, which directly violates the uses for reason which Dr. Towns described in the lesson.
The Biblical Argument presented by Andrew seemed weak. Andrew stated 2 Peter 1:20-21 referred to “Scripture” but actually only speaks of prophecy. Combining that with verses stating God never lies only proves all prophecies to be inerrant. Later, Andrew references Matthew 5:18 which in the context also seems to pertain to fulfillment of prophesy.
Andrew’s rebuttals to the attacks on the Biblical Argument are logical and complete. Andrew thoroughly addressed the counter-arguments and showed them to be false or invalid.
Personal Conclusion
I believe in inerrancy of the bible. There were several quotes in the article that I think substantiate how important inerrancy is. The clearest one was Clark Pinnock, “Inerrancy is to be regarded as an essential concomitant of the doctrine of inspiration, a necessary inference drawn from the fact that Scripture is God’s Word… If one believes the Scripture to be god’s Word, he cannot fail to believe it inerrant. …” I agree with Andrew’s intended Biblical Argument, however, I believe he arrived at the conclusion incorrectly. As I stated above, 2 Peter 1:20-21 limits God’s inspiration to just prophecy. However, Paul clearly teaches in 2 Timothy 3:16 that God inspires all scripture, as well as describing what God’s intended use for scripture is. Linking 2 Timothy 3:16, with Numbers 23:19 that claims God can’t lie, and Matt 5:18, “one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law” points to clear and concrete inerrancy of scripture. The logic would be (1) God inspired every word of Scripture, (2) God intended every word (even letters) to be written, and (3) God can’t lie. Thus, every word of the Bible must be inerrant.
This being said, the question remains as to which scriptures Jesus was referring to. The New Testament authenticity, validity, and accuracy are not brought into question by this issue. However, since the Hebrew scriptures were not canonized completely until after Jesus’ ascension Jesus may have only been referring to the books that were accepted by the Jews at the time, the books that He specifically quoted or referenced, or something less than both.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Ouch!
We went on a really fun hike on Saturday. It was beautiful. We may have hiked four to five miles with a whole herd of kids. It was going beautifully until Candi slipped on a rock .5 miles from the finish line and twisted (we think) her ankle. It was really badly swollen (or so I thought until today). This morning it was really badly swollen (or so I thought until tonight). You get the picture. If it's not better tomorrow morning we'll have to get some x-rays.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
God's day planner
So, the time without the TV has been great, actually. There were a couple of times that wanted to sit down, relax, and watch a movie with Candi. However, after conceding that I wasn't going to carry the TV in, hook it up and go out and get a movie, I then conceded that I actually had things to do. That or I just sat down with one of my kids and spent some quality time.
However, it has brought up a question. How much of our time does God intend us to spend with the traditional American church body? I don't mean that with any sarcasm. Honestly, if I'm not spending my time on useless things, should I replace that time block accomplishing "church" goals? (By church in this instance I mean generally those that I would meet with Sunday mornings and in small groups, because personally I believe my wife and children are just as much of the church as my "church" community)
The book of Acts records the growth of the Christian church and the spread of the gospel of Jesus. However, the huge majority of it just records what Peter, Paul, and their companions did; very little is mentioned of the individual families and how they lived out their faith. Were there city-wide or neighborhood-wide goals? Obviously there were ministries for the poor, widows, and needy (that's recorded). Beyond that, though, what did the formation of the church look like between Monday and Saturday?
Looks like more studying to do...
However, it has brought up a question. How much of our time does God intend us to spend with the traditional American church body? I don't mean that with any sarcasm. Honestly, if I'm not spending my time on useless things, should I replace that time block accomplishing "church" goals? (By church in this instance I mean generally those that I would meet with Sunday mornings and in small groups, because personally I believe my wife and children are just as much of the church as my "church" community)
The book of Acts records the growth of the Christian church and the spread of the gospel of Jesus. However, the huge majority of it just records what Peter, Paul, and their companions did; very little is mentioned of the individual families and how they lived out their faith. Were there city-wide or neighborhood-wide goals? Obviously there were ministries for the poor, widows, and needy (that's recorded). Beyond that, though, what did the formation of the church look like between Monday and Saturday?
Looks like more studying to do...
Friday, January 18, 2008
Good Update
Well, it's been a while because we've been busy. I'm working at night this week and "night" weeks are always busier. We're implementing a new schedule for homeschooling and it's going pretty well. I'm a little too selfish to instantly adjust my life and desires, but by God's grace I'm getting there.
Day 7 with out the TV - We don't miss the TV much. In fact, it's kind of "out of sight out of mind." Occasionally, I want to sit down and relax, have a little fun. One of the things the Maxwell's stressed was how fun is the worlds counterfeit for joy. True joy is derived from living a life completely devoted to God. Desiring fun then directly assaults God's desire for us. I haven't fully ascribed to their point, but as day after day passes I am more convinced and convicted that "fun" has kept me from loving God and gaining joy from it.
I started Theology I on Monday. The classes run from Monday to Monday (at midnight EST) and I'm behind schedule. Like I said, "night" weeks at work get really busy. I'm trying to include my schedule into the home schooling one. I've never been a great time-manager so I appreciate the trial-by-fire. Maybe necessity is the mother of adjustment, too.
The best result of our new schedule and "TVlessness" is that we're making time to pray and study God's word every morning separately AND as a family - every day! It's letting us communicate and experience God's love and will together daily. It feels like we've had a re- occurring car problem and just figured out the problem was that we're missing a crucial but simple nut/bolt/seal/etc.
God bless you!
Day 7 with out the TV - We don't miss the TV much. In fact, it's kind of "out of sight out of mind." Occasionally, I want to sit down and relax, have a little fun. One of the things the Maxwell's stressed was how fun is the worlds counterfeit for joy. True joy is derived from living a life completely devoted to God. Desiring fun then directly assaults God's desire for us. I haven't fully ascribed to their point, but as day after day passes I am more convinced and convicted that "fun" has kept me from loving God and gaining joy from it.
I started Theology I on Monday. The classes run from Monday to Monday (at midnight EST) and I'm behind schedule. Like I said, "night" weeks at work get really busy. I'm trying to include my schedule into the home schooling one. I've never been a great time-manager so I appreciate the trial-by-fire. Maybe necessity is the mother of adjustment, too.
The best result of our new schedule and "TVlessness" is that we're making time to pray and study God's word every morning separately AND as a family - every day! It's letting us communicate and experience God's love and will together daily. It feels like we've had a re- occurring car problem and just figured out the problem was that we're missing a crucial but simple nut/bolt/seal/etc.
God bless you!
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Weekend events
Well, this Saturday we were invited by our friends to a homeschooling conference. It was by the Maxwell family who has been homeschooling for over 25 years. They have eight children and some amazing fruit has come from their labor. All of their children are very impressive, are outgoing (the stigma with homeschooling is that the children won't know how to behave in public or relate to others), and have done some very impressive things. You'll have to visit their website to see it all.
One of the things they feel strongly about is that TV is completely out. Again you'll have to check out the website to read their reasoning but I see a lot of value in what they think. The biggest thing to me is preventing Nori, Christian, and Wyatt from having to overcome the lies, false values, indoctrination, etc. that comes from watching years of television shows, movies, and commercials. Now that I have children I realize kids don't need to see or know about wrong things in order to live a right life. So I agree with a lot of what the Maxwell's taught this weekend. We're going to try 30-days with out the TV (we haven't had any channels really (cable or local) for that last year, but we still watch plenty of movies and play video games.). I'll go ahead and say now that I have to keep one going because my Theology 201 (starts Tuesday!) is half online and half DVDs!. I'm interested to see if the time we spend with the TV is time God actually wants us spending elsewhere.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Tony Dungy memoir
I got Tony Dungy's book from my dad for Christmas. I'm about 1/4 of the way through it and really enjoying it. I've wanted to read more biographical/autobiographical stuff lately to see how actual people have live and experienced life rather than read what someone says about some subject. I'm impressed by the honesty and humility I've read so far. I didn't know he played for a while, graduated from my favorite college as one of their top record holders as quarterback and then made it to the NFL as a defensive player on a great team at the time (and still I hear - I don't watch or follow football much), the Steelers and then evidently played with the 49ers during Montana's rookie year. There's a lot of other good stuff in the first 70 pages...
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Healing Blog
I was looking at the website of our church family (Vineyard West Valley) in Phoenix (actually Glendale/Avondale area) and saw they created a blog for those in the church to post healing they've received. Pretty cool! It's awesome to be able to see the number of posts made and know those are actually each interventions by God. You can check it out here.
Friday, January 4, 2008
To Theology and beyond!
I'm starting Theology 201 in 10 days. I got the book and I'm just waiting on the DVDs. I am pretty excited about this course because I like to learn bible facts, doctrine, stuff like that. I used to be a pretty good legalist in my "hay-day." God has changed my life and refocused it around grace and mercy, but I still enjoy theology, apologetics, and biblical study.
Actually, the gorge between legalism and Christianity isn't very wide. It's really just a matter of knowing a bunch of stuff and applying the very same bunch of stuff. I'll definitely advise anyone reading here to go with the latter. Legalism looks good on the outside, but feels cold, sick, lonely, and painful on the inside.
Looking back, I'm amazed at how His grace works non-stop even when we are completely ignorant of it. Even still, I'm pretty sure I'll be relatively ignorant of His grace until the day I die... ignorance is bliss.
Actually, the gorge between legalism and Christianity isn't very wide. It's really just a matter of knowing a bunch of stuff and applying the very same bunch of stuff. I'll definitely advise anyone reading here to go with the latter. Legalism looks good on the outside, but feels cold, sick, lonely, and painful on the inside.
Looking back, I'm amazed at how His grace works non-stop even when we are completely ignorant of it. Even still, I'm pretty sure I'll be relatively ignorant of His grace until the day I die... ignorance is bliss.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The Heartbreak Kid
Well, I just today watch a movie, today, called The Heartbreak Kid starring Ben Stiller. Though there was a lot of funny dialogue and lol parts (especially for reminiscing about the newlywed times), the movie also contained a lot of crude humor and more sexual nudity than I expected. I guess I was willing to get over that but the way they expressed their main idea was too much for me.
Disclaimer - I'm going to ruin the movie in a couple of seconds for those that don't like to know about a movie prior to seeing it.
In the movie, Ben Stiller "finally" gets married in his 40s to someone he's known for 6 weeks. On the honeymoon, she turns out to be a total stranger (after 6 weeks people are only slightly stranger), he meets the "girl of his dreams", and divorces his bride for the other girl. Unfortunately, by the time he gets to the other girl again, she's married. He tries to break up the marriage. Wouldn't you know it, a year later she does leave her new husband for Mr. Stiller and goes to give him the news. Sparks fly when they see each other and they make plans to get together. She exits stage left and he walks over to his new wife of one year and implies to the audience he's going to leave her for the "dream girl."
I still believe there are some things in this world that are sacred. Marriage is one of them. I can understand the need for language, hate, sex, etc. to tell a story in movies. However, I think discrimination is required as to the value of the point that's being made. In this case soundly thrashing marriage for a laugh and a life lesson is a heavily unbalanced scale. Leave it to Hollywood to set low standards and then fail to meet them (and leave it to me to continue giving them my loyalty and money to complete the cycle).
As far as movies go, I would suggest those that value their time, skip this one. The humor isn't that great, the supporting acting is slightly better than I could do (those that have played Cranium with me can testify here), the storyline isn't great at all, and its a few commandments shy of wholesome entertainment. We finished the movie only because I was hoping Hollywood would not completely trampled marriage; that maybe some good would come out of it.
More happened today, but I'll post that another time. :-)
Disclaimer - I'm going to ruin the movie in a couple of seconds for those that don't like to know about a movie prior to seeing it.
In the movie, Ben Stiller "finally" gets married in his 40s to someone he's known for 6 weeks. On the honeymoon, she turns out to be a total stranger (after 6 weeks people are only slightly stranger), he meets the "girl of his dreams", and divorces his bride for the other girl. Unfortunately, by the time he gets to the other girl again, she's married. He tries to break up the marriage. Wouldn't you know it, a year later she does leave her new husband for Mr. Stiller and goes to give him the news. Sparks fly when they see each other and they make plans to get together. She exits stage left and he walks over to his new wife of one year and implies to the audience he's going to leave her for the "dream girl."
I still believe there are some things in this world that are sacred. Marriage is one of them. I can understand the need for language, hate, sex, etc. to tell a story in movies. However, I think discrimination is required as to the value of the point that's being made. In this case soundly thrashing marriage for a laugh and a life lesson is a heavily unbalanced scale. Leave it to Hollywood to set low standards and then fail to meet them (and leave it to me to continue giving them my loyalty and money to complete the cycle).
As far as movies go, I would suggest those that value their time, skip this one. The humor isn't that great, the supporting acting is slightly better than I could do (those that have played Cranium with me can testify here), the storyline isn't great at all, and its a few commandments shy of wholesome entertainment. We finished the movie only because I was hoping Hollywood would not completely trampled marriage; that maybe some good would come out of it.
More happened today, but I'll post that another time. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)