tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post4658711257427073843..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: Greg Beale on the Erosion of InerrancyMichael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-17633951362809750972009-02-16T11:16:00.000-06:002009-02-16T11:16:00.000-06:00"Yet Calvin was influenced by medieval views of Sc..."Yet Calvin was influenced by medieval views of Scripture and not by modernist ones!"<BR/><BR/>This makes the problem all the more sharp when viewing understanding the reformers. I think Calvin would most certainly hold to Aquinas' idea on the Unity of Truth. Scripture does not give us one truth, and reason another, but when rightly understood they agree. For anyone to say that this is not the back ground of "medieval" thought is fudging the issue. The Medievals were aware of the "errancy" issue because of the likes of the two truth theory put forward by thinkers like Siger of Bribant and the muslim philosopher Averroes.<BR/><BR/>Also, if one looks at Calvin's understanding of the cosmology of Genesis 1 he dispenses with the solid firmanent understanding of the text, but at the same time he notes that scripture is written for the common mand to understand. There is balance, and people like Enns take it to far in the other direction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-30433358797669294872009-02-04T04:54:00.000-06:002009-02-04T04:54:00.000-06:00I wonder why you do not see Inter-Testamental writ...I wonder why you do not see Inter-Testamental writings and ANE useful in attempting to understand the world view of 1 C.E. to have the writings of others surely is helpful and gives us insights into the milieu of the period. I am sure you would accept Josephus and Philo <BR/>Why not 1 Enoch for example which explains much in the NT. If however it is because the Scriptures are different how so, in using the word `inerrant` there is much misunderstanding. I believe a more accurate understanding is that there is truth contained. A good introduction to understanding was made by the International Theological Commission at the Vatican. It is balanced and fair, in that it sees God as the author but that the writers of the texts are instruments but in being human there humanity is not discarded.andrewbournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14365466668037323684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-4469465880060686912009-02-02T00:48:00.000-06:002009-02-02T00:48:00.000-06:00Interesting post, but I believe that the Bible is ...Interesting post, but I believe that the Bible is inerrant or infallible as it relates to matters of faith. However, I believe that the real controversy boils down to whether or not Holy Scripture is trustworthy (esp. with today's use of the ever popular Hermeneutic of Suspicion), I say personally, that the Bible is fully trustworthy. Inerrancy for me, being an African American evangelical in a white liberal seminary context, means someone's calvinist or wesleyan or dispensationalist hermeneutic imposed on the text. So, for me, the Christian faith being all about trusting Jesus as the Messiah, refer to the Bible as fully trustworthy.Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14847912389789698622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-69355356391354246432009-01-31T22:42:00.000-06:002009-01-31T22:42:00.000-06:00"That a priori theological deduction about Scriptu..."That a priori theological deduction about Scripture always trumps the phenomena of Scripture in formulating a doctrine of Scripture. A doctrine of Scripture should take into account Scripture's witness to itself, but also the phenomenon of Scripture's textual history and its relationship to its cultural context..."<BR/><BR/>I like to say (from a philosophical point of view) that the doctrine of the inerrancy that based on the character of God is prima facie justified, but is nonetheless defeasible by the phenomena of Scripture. That it's defeasible does not mean it's wrong, but just that we must allow Scripture itself to transform our concepts.<BR/><BR/>That was a great post, thanks!Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07547907438379868209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-85684616258591804232009-01-31T12:21:00.000-06:002009-01-31T12:21:00.000-06:00Deuteronomy 30:11-14 mangled in Romans 10:6-9<A HREF="http://egopaulus.blogspot.com/2009/01/deuteronomy-3011-14-versus-romans-106-9.html" REL="nofollow">Deuteronomy 30:11-14 mangled in Romans 10:6-9</A>PaulSceptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14904172612565533112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-9765178107805476912009-01-31T02:47:00.000-06:002009-01-31T02:47:00.000-06:00Hi there,thank you very much for your well thought...Hi there,<BR/><BR/>thank you very much for your well thought comments. I really appreciate your carefull and nuanced thinking about this topic.<BR/><BR/>Please allow me to add some thoughts about the view of scripture in premodern times:<BR/>You can easily point to Luther to show that he was certainly not an adherent of a Chicago like teaching even though he certainly had a very high view of scripture (e.g. cf. WA 18,723,3-8; 50,657,25-30). But he was only rejecting so-called <I>errores in fide</I>; these are impossible because God's spirit doesn't contradict himself. In his Commentary on Zechariah from 1527, he admitted freely that Matthew (27,9) had made a mistake by attributing Zech. 11,12f. to Jeremiah. Then he adds: “Solche und derlei Fragen bekümmern mich nicht, weil sie wenig zur Sache dienen... .” And if I remember rightly, he was quite relaxed admitting that the numbers in the Exodus narrative are too high; because as a matter of logistics it would have been impossible lead them all in just one night through the sea. So they must me symbolic in nature, he thought. Further examples are Johann Albrecht Bengel and Augustinus (if I'm not wrong; I should probably re-check the original sometime. Here and now I can only point you to a secondary reference: Gerhard Maier, Biblische Hermeneutik, Wuppertal 42003, S. 108-109; 119-120). Bengel said that the evangelists were “ohne Fehl und Irrtum” but allowed for <I>lapsus memoriae</I>. The same is true for Augustinus, the often quoted model for modern proponents of inerrancy: On the one hand he could say that there can be no errors in the gospels/ scripture , on the other hand he had no problem to admit <I>lapsus memoriae</I>. Both, Bengel and Augustinus thought that theses <I>lapsus memoriae</I> were allowed to happen by God to our benefit.<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work!<BR/>God bless<BR/><BR/>GerschiGerschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17763815037259169995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-83702157688120216372009-01-31T00:04:00.000-06:002009-01-31T00:04:00.000-06:00About the usage of the word "infallible" - I guess...About the usage of the word "infallible" - <BR/>I guess that one concern is that the understanding of the word "infallible" has changed over time. Sometimes it has been reconfigured to mean something akin to "limited inerrancy", limiting the truthfulness of scripture to only matters of faith and conduct. So perhaps while proponents of "inerrancy" realizes that it comes with certain unfortunate baggages, it is a lesser evil to live with since it safeguards the truthfulness and trustworthiness of scripture in all things.gummiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13123189645781138442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-1006316094762303682009-01-31T00:02:00.000-06:002009-01-31T00:02:00.000-06:00I can't help but think a lot of the posturing in t...I can't help but think a lot of the posturing in the debate regarding inerrancy rests in how each person understands post-critical hermeneutics and wether a doctrine of scripture should be shaped in part (or full) by it.Tony Stiffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470538764456787608noreply@blogger.com