Bilolatry, Inerrancy, And Historic Theology: My Take

[Maestroh]

Dear Radar and Ted,

I've watched and checked in on occasion regarding the discussion of inerrancy. I also noted - and Radar inquired - that in my judgment an emphasis on inerrancy CAN lead (it does not necessarily lead) to bibliolatry. This is actually an old argument, but first a few caveats.

1) I DO hold to the notion that the original writings given by the apostles were inerrant/infallible. This seems too much semantics to me. Much is made of the use of the word infallible but as I noted on the post the other day, the word 'inerrant' did not even exist until around the time the KJV was translated. Its original use was scientific and NOT theological. But the notion that there is any qualitative difference in the terms is something we're going to have to simply agree to disagree regarding. Look up one in the dictionary and the other is usually listed as the definition or a synonym.

2) Ted is - according to what I've been able to research - correct on a couple of points. Warfield was probably NOT the first person to use the term 'inerrant' in regards to the Bible - Carson and Woolridge cover this in 'Scripture and Truth' - but there is no question that Warfield IS where the so-called paradigm shift from advocating the extant text to a non-existent (invisible?) text occurred. I could really care less regarding who used the term first as it is, in fact, a descriptive term.

3) We DO have the originals; but we don't have the original pieces of papyrus on which they were given. I believe in preservation but I do not believe in the DOCTRINE of preservation that fundamentalists invented in regards to the KJV. Perhaps my nuancing can be seen as the same as Ted's here in regards to use of a specific term. But the lack of mention of ANY DOCTRINE of preservation in ANY church creed PRIOR to the WCF indicates to me that such a 'doctrine' cannot be even four hundred years old. Again: I believe in preservation but not a DOCTRINE of preservation that mandates its occurence or preservation in one particular text.

But we DO have the so-called 'inerrant original autographs' dispersed among 5,400 pieces of manuscripts. We just don't have it all in one spot - and THAT is where the problem arises. We have them because God did preserve His Word in a GENERAL way that does not mandate its preservation in ONE SPECIFIC codex. And that is where inerrancy crumbles.

Why?

Because we must admit - if we are seekers of truth - two inconvenient truths that render the profession of inerrancy into something less than an evidential proposition. First: since textual criticism is necessary in some cases - though NOT in about 98% of the text - we are left with a certain level of less than absolute certainty. Personally, I think such is the hand of God. 100% certainty means no FAITH. But the other problem is that even though we possess the so-called IOA, we can NEVER KNOW when we have it all in one place.

The best Bibles of the most conservative and believing stripe have errors in them whether errors of translation or text. In some cases, we must engage in what is called 'conjectural emendation' - where NO manuscripts support a specific view and we are left at the mercy of the translator.

What then is the inerrant text?

Ted is arguing - if I understand him - that the Chicago Statement is doubly unnecessary. First, it is unnecessary because he believes no statement is NECESSARY to be added to the WCF. Second, it is unnecessary because it forces Christians to engage in apologetics in an arena where we can never prove what it is we are alleging is true in regards to inerrancy.

(I would add, however, that where I may part from Ted on this is that I think that inerrancy and infallibility BOTH are ultimately presuppositional statements of faith. I cannot 'prove' the infallibility of the Bible, but I embrace that it is).

I think Radar is asking some good questions but I hope the conversation will not be asymmetrical. I hold to inerrancy, but I do not 'defend' a nonexistent text. You may well wonder what good it is; I wonder the same, Ted.

A year ago when CARM when on its drunken rampage against Ted, trav, and some of us (YP and myself to a much lesser extent), the problem was the lack of grace being shown. Admittedly, perhaps all of us were guilty to some degree. But the problem was that CARM's leadership saw no need to answer (or even ask) questions of themselves - and got mad when they were confronted.

I will continue on this long spiel tomorrow. I'm writing from work and we've gotten incredibly busy.

M

[Tallen]

Ted is arguing - if I understand him - that the Chicago Statement is doubly unnecessary. First, it is unnecessary because he believes no statement is NECESSARY to be added to the WCF. Second, it is unnecessary because it forces Christians to engage in apologetics in an arena where we can never prove what it is we are alleging is true in regards to inerrancy.

(I would add, however, that where I may part from Ted on this is that I think that inerrancy and infallibility BOTH are ultimately presuppositional statements of faith. I cannot 'prove' the infallibility of the Bible, but I embrace that it is).

M

Two things that I should add here.

1) I am not arguing for the WCF per se', but I am saying that the Reformational Confessions do establish a view of the scriptures. Not just the WCF, but in many of the confessions, the view that the message of God exists as an infallible testimony to the truth. It is this message that is preserved, as it exists both inside and outside of the scriptures. Nature itself is a witness to this message, for instance, and speaks of the truth of God unto the ends of the earth (Psalms 19). It is this "law", which is written into nature that is seen as an infallible witness and is evidenced in all societies and in all people. For instance, all cultures are against "murder" and have penal systems that enforce morality upon the society. God preserves this voice, this message, this witness, and it is through this that all men are convicted for sin. No one is left without some kind of infallible witness to the truth that will condemn them from the law of God.

Secondly, we are left with a Gospel message that is preserved in the scriptures. A message that witnesses about the Messiah and brings people into the Kingdom of God. And it is this message about the history of a people that lead to the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ that is an infallible tool used by God. And whether ones theology says that life precedes faith or faith precedes life, if the message of Christ is preserved, it is a means that God uses for His purpose to bring life to those who will believe. And the Gospel message is the testimony of a believer to the fact of the work of Christ and his relationship to that work.

So my first point is this. If God would so desire we don't even need a Bible to preserve the message of God. The law of God is written in nature and the Gospel message can be preached from a Spirit led relationship, where there is fruit and gifts given by the Spirit of God, as it was in the early church. It is the message that is infallible.

Gal 1:12 KJV For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

2) Relating to the presuppositional propositions of infallibility and inerrancy. We can go to the scriptures, which the Protestant church has named as the final rule of the faith, in order to see what presupposition is supported by them. If we do this then we will find that there is no mandate of God to argue for an inerrant bible, no example in scripture for this. In fact, God has not in His providence seen fit to preserve the scriptures in such a manner that we would be able to examine the original writings. It is this driving mandate that we must grasp in order to realize that it is not the Christian duty to argue for the text being one way or another.

But we do see a mandate to argue for the message of the scripture, the message of Christ and the message being preached to all creation.

1Jo 1:5 KJV This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

The presupposition supported by scripture is that we hear a message and then declare a message. And although the bible holds that message within it, and the Apostles argued that they used the scriptures, searched them diligently, and used them to support the message, it was the message itself that became the focus of the Christian church. When we declare Christ with our spoken words, we are declaring the power and message of God.

When we add the extra burden of defending the quality of the text to the Christian, we add something extra to the Gospel message, something that is unnecessary and unneeded to begin with. Our job as Christian men and women is to proclaim the message of Christ, and how that message relates to us as believers and to love one another..., that is the scriptural mandate for proclaiming a saving message of Christ.

So the question in my mind is this. Do people come into the kingdom of God knowing that the Bible is inerrant or infallible, or do they come into the kingdom of God by the preaching of Jesus Christ.

Rom 10:8-9 KJV But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; (9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Consider the message of the Apostle. He supports his message with scripture (Rom 10:11), it is the common ground among Christians, but he proclaims that the message exists within the heart and is the result of the work of the Holy Spirit.

Gal 1:8-11 KJV But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (10) For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For me the issue boils down to this, does the argument for inerrancy seek to please God or men? And the answer is quite clear to me, it is invented as an apologetic tool to defend against the criticism of men. We invent this doctrine in order to appease the scrutiny of people that do not believe the scripture in the first place. It would be much better to preach to them the crucified Christ than to invent doctrines that are designed to defend against the unbelievers unbelief in the first place.

Blessings.

[Maestroh]

Ted,

Hoping you don't feel I chained you just to the WCF; I just know that is the one you cite most often and is your denomination's linchpin confession. I've been reading 'Creeds of the Churches' and find some of it fascinating. We are more creedal than we often realize - Baptists, too, who oppose them in general terms.

But back to the issue at hand.

I agree with a number of points you just made, and you verbalized them better than I could. If I read you correctly, we agree on the following points:

1) It's a good thing we have a written Word but God doesn't need it to communicate with us.

2) The emphasis is on the MESSAGE as opposed to whether the word is an aorist passive or future indicative - or whether a conjectural emendation is necessary.

3) Nature is a sufficient guide to God and points to Jesus Christ as does all - but God has blessed us abundantly with His written Word.

There's probably more, but let's continue down the path to bibliolatry.


It must be remembered that the FOCUS of our worship, our allegiance, and our gratitude is to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But how can inerrancy lead to bibliolatry?

We must remember something very important here: inerrancy is viewed through the prism of post-Enlightenment methdology mixed with Western European common sense realism philosophy. It is quite hard to extricate one from the other. But let's continue and see where this goes.

1) Inerrancy takes one's focus off of Christ and puts the believer in the unenviable position of defending something he's never seen as something authoritative. It allows skeptics and enemies of the faith to do something much more comfortable for most of them: to go after a book as opposed to going after the person of Jesus - whom they lionize as a great teacher and lover of mankind but Whom they want nothing to do with as Lord of their lives. It's a whole lot easier to blast an inantimate object (from their perspective) and seem to be nice as opposed to ripping Jesus personally. The ripping of Jesus only comes after 'proving' there are 'errors' in all the extant Bibles.

2) Nowhere are we told in Scripture to DEFEND the Word of God. I Peter 3:15-16 tells us to give an answer for the hope that is within us - not to 'defend the Word of God.'

Howard Hendricks has been a professor at DTS since 1952. Every single student is REQUIRED to take his class on Hermeneutics regardless of major. Hendricks often tells about people who engage in apologetic ministries and go out to 'defend God's Word,' laughing out loud and saying, "Apparently, God is incapable of doing such." We are never told to 'defend God's Word as inerrant;' we are told it is perfect, to delight in it, to believe it, and to search it.

3) The fallacy of equivocation. How often do we try to say the Bible is inerrant and then someone shows something like the account of the taxation during Christ's birth and whether or not Quirinius was governor? Or the claim in II Samuel that someone other than David killed the 'brother of' Goliath despite there being NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE that this is original?

So we hedge and say, "Well, that's a copyist error." Excuse me, but isn't that an error? It reminds me of Bill Clinton's claim that 'oral sex' wasn't 'really' sex despite the fact that 'sex' is the substantive in that phrase ('oral' is an adjective). So what we say is, "Well, the Bible has no errors, but it has copyist errors."

Why such a statement is not convincing to the unbeliever is indeed beyond me!!!

We are now left on the horns of an evangelistic dilemma. If we're honest, we have to admit that inerrancy is an unprovable statement of faith. But this is not enough for some Christians - who mistake their own insecurities at evangelism for a lack of power in the message of the cross. So many go the next route: realizing they HAVE to have an 'inerrant text' in hand, they pick a translation and say that it is inerrant. The most common one, of course, is the KJV.

But what do you do when you encounter a translation error? Or when you have a situation like Matthew 27:9 where it says that Jesus claims an OT reference from Zechariah but says that it's from Jeremiah? What do you do?

Well, you can take the fundamentalist route and argue in two stages, claiming that Jesus was referencing the section of the prophets where Zechariah was and that Jeremiah was the most prominent book. John MacArthur does this in his NKJV study Bible (I haven't checked his NASV). You are reduced to arguing in a circle:

"Well, since there can't be an error here, we have to come up with an alternative" - and ultimately the Christian either loses his faith or engages in dishonesty.

Or you can do the other fundamentalist specialty: say that Jeremiah originally said it and then there's two routes: 1) cite similar verbiage from Jeremiah and claim it is true; or 2) state that a portion of the letter was lost.

And now you have to answer another question: assuming the KJV is perfect, where was the perfect Bible BEFORE 1611? (By perfect, I mean inerrant in this context). And then you have two other questions to answer:

1) If there was an inerrant text prior to 1611, how did it lose its inerrancy or get replaced?

2) Why is there NO text that matches the KJV EXACTLY word for word?

Now you have two choices, neither of them very good:

1) More equivocation or
2) Moving the goalposts

If you choose the former, you line up with Donald A. Waite's and David Cloud's of the world. You fudge on the word and refer to 'errors' as 'problems' but NEVER ADMIT they are errors. In short, you lie. And if you've ever read either one, you know that they don't just lie once.

If you choose the latter, you go the route of Peter Ruckman and say that the 1611 KJV was 'reinspired.' Thus, the 'mistakes' in the KJV are actually 'advanced revelation.'

Is God really honored by either?

And so you keep pounding the pulpit and publishing pamphlets to prove the inerrancy of a particular translation. D.A. Waite has written over 900 books advocating the absolute perfection of the KJV.

Can someone who writes over 900 books about a Bible translation as inerrant really be regarded as anything other than a bibliolator? The ranting and raving about the perfection of the extant text - over and over with distortion after distortion, ad hominem after ad hominem - these folks spend more time arguing in favor of the KJV than they do arguing Jesus is Lord.

Again, I say: bibliolatry.

It is probably not intentional, but they have moved the locus of allegiance off Christ and onto written words.


By such I am NOT saying Scripture is not authoritative for indeed it is. I do believe Scripture was given without error and thus would qualify as an inerrantist.

But it occupies so little of my time in apologetics.


M

[raderag]

Dear Radar and Ted,

I've watched and checked in on occasion regarding the discussion of inerrancy. I also noted - and Radar inquired - that in my judgment an emphasis on inerrancy CAN lead (it does not necessarily lead) to bibliolatry. This is actually an old argument, but first a few caveats.

1) I DO hold to the notion that the original writings given by the apostles were inerrant/infallible. This seems too much semantics to me. Much is made of the use of the word infallible but as I noted on the post the other day, the word 'inerrant' did not even exist until around the time the KJV was translated. Its original use was scientific and NOT theological. But the notion that there is any qualitative difference in the terms is something we're going to have to simply agree to disagree regarding. Look up one in the dictionary and the other is usually listed as the definition or a synonym.

2) Ted is - according to what I've been able to research - correct on a couple of points. Warfield was probably NOT the first person to use the term 'inerrant' in regards to the Bible - Carson and Woolridge cover this in 'Scripture and Truth' - but there is no question that Warfield IS where the so-called paradigm shift from advocating the extant text to a non-existent (invisible?) text occurred. I could really care less regarding who used the term first as it is, in fact, a descriptive term.

3) We DO have the originals; but we don't have the original pieces of papyrus on which they were given. I believe in preservation but I do not believe in the DOCTRINE of preservation that fundamentalists invented in regards to the KJV. Perhaps my nuancing can be seen as the same as Ted's here in regards to use of a specific term. But the lack of mention of ANY DOCTRINE of preservation in ANY church creed PRIOR to the WCF indicates to me that such a 'doctrine' cannot be even four hundred years old. Again: I believe in preservation but not a DOCTRINE of preservation that mandates its occurence or preservation in one particular text.

But we DO have the so-called 'inerrant original autographs' dispersed among 5,400 pieces of manuscripts. We just don't have it all in one spot - and THAT is where the problem arises. We have them because God did preserve His Word in a GENERAL way that does not mandate its preservation in ONE SPECIFIC codex. And that is where inerrancy crumbles.

Why?

Because we must admit - if we are seekers of truth - two inconvenient truths that render the profession of inerrancy into something less than an evidential proposition. First: since textual criticism is necessary in some cases - though NOT in about 98% of the text - we are left with a certain level of less than absolute certainty. Personally, I think such is the hand of God. 100% certainty means no FAITH. But the other problem is that even though we possess the so-called IOA, we can NEVER KNOW when we have it all in one place.

The best Bibles of the most conservative and believing stripe have errors in them whether errors of translation or text. In some cases, we must engage in what is called 'conjectural emendation' - where NO manuscripts support a specific view and we are left at the mercy of the translator.

What then is the inerrant text?

Ted is arguing - if I understand him - that the Chicago Statement is doubly unnecessary. First, it is unnecessary because he believes no statement is NECESSARY to be added to the WCF. Second, it is unnecessary because it forces Christians to engage in apologetics in an arena where we can never prove what it is we are alleging is true in regards to inerrancy.

(I would add, however, that where I may part from Ted on this is that I think that inerrancy and infallibility BOTH are ultimately presuppositional statements of faith. I cannot 'prove' the infallibility of the Bible, but I embrace that it is).

I think Radar is asking some good questions but I hope the conversation will not be asymmetrical. I hold to inerrancy, but I do not 'defend' a nonexistent text. You may well wonder what good it is; I wonder the same, Ted.

A year ago when CARM when on its drunken rampage against Ted, trav, and some of us (YP and myself to a much lesser extent), the problem was the lack of grace being shown. Admittedly, perhaps all of us were guilty to some degree. But the problem was that CARM's leadership saw no need to answer (or even ask) questions of themselves - and got mad when they were confronted.

I will continue on this long spiel tomorrow. I'm writing from work and we've gotten incredibly busy.

M

I don't have any major issues with anything that you have said so far, but still don't like this biblioidolatry as it is a neo-orthodox smear word.

As far as the CSoF, I think you are missing the point of ecumenicism and how the Church handles error, but we can argue that another time. Both Ted and you seem to be missing the error that the CSoF was defending against.

[raderag]

So my first point is this. If God would so desire we don't even need a Bible to preserve the message of God. The law of God is written in nature and the Gospel message can be preached from a Spirit led relationship, where there is fruit and gifts given by the Spirit of God, as it was in the early church. It is the message that is infallible.


"If" being the operative word. While God does reveal himself through nature, fallen man cannot nor will not perceive this without the power of His word preached.




THE WESTMINSTER
CONFESSION OF FAITH
(1646)



Chapter I

Of the Holy Scripture

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn0) yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn1) Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn2) and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn3) which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn4) those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn5)
[2] 1CO 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.




Gal 1:12 KJV For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

2) Relating to the presuppositional propositions of infallibility and inerrancy. We can go to the scriptures, which the Protestant church has named as the final rule of the faith, in order to see what presupposition is supported by them. If we do this then we will find that there is no mandate of God to argue for an inerrant bible, no example in scripture for this. In fact, God has not in His providence seen fit to preserve the scriptures in such a manner that we would be able to examine the original writings. It is this driving mandate that we must grasp in order to realize that it is not the Christian duty to argue for the text being one way or another.

But we do see a mandate to argue for the message of the scripture, the message of Christ and the message being preached to all creation.

1Jo 1:5 KJV This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

The presupposition supported by scripture is that we hear a message and then declare a message. And although the bible holds that message within it, and the Apostles argued that they used the scriptures, searched them diligently, and used them to support the message, it was the message itself that became the focus of the Christian church. When we declare Christ with our spoken words, we are declaring the power and message of God.

When we add the extra burden of defending the quality of the text to the Christian, we add something extra to the Gospel message, something that is unnecessary and unneeded to begin with. Our job as Christian men and women is to proclaim the message of Christ, and how that message relates to us as believers and to love one another..., that is the scriptural mandate for proclaiming a saving message of Christ.

Ted, I think this is where your argument is the strongest, and I actually more or less agree.



For me the issue boils down to this, does the argument for inerrancy seek to please God or men? And the answer is quite clear to me, it is invented as an apologetic tool to defend against the criticism of men. We invent this doctrine in order to appease the scrutiny of people that do not believe the scripture in the first place. It would be much better to preach to them the crucified Christ than to invent doctrines that are designed to defend against the unbelievers unbelief in the first place.


Ted, I think you are missing the point. CSoF was not an invention, but rather a defense of the faith. I think we need to hash out the CSoF, and see where you agree/disagree, because for the most part it was orthodoxy vs heresy.


Ted,

Hoping you don't feel I chained you just to the WCF; I just know that is the one you cite most often and is your denomination's linchpin confession. I've been reading 'Creeds of the Churches' and find some of it fascinating. We are more creedal than we often realize - Baptists, too, who oppose them in general terms.

But back to the issue at hand.

I agree with a number of points you just made, and you verbalized them better than I could. If I read you correctly, we agree on the following points:

1) It's a good thing we have a written Word but God doesn't need it to communicate with us.

2) The emphasis is on the MESSAGE as opposed to whether the word is an aorist passive or future indicative - or whether a conjectural emendation is necessary.

3) Nature is a sufficient guide to God and points to Jesus Christ as does all - but God has blessed us abundantly with His written Word.


Can you expand on points 1 & 3?



There's probably more, but let's continue down the path to bibliolatry.


It must be remembered that the FOCUS of our worship, our allegiance, and our gratitude is to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But how can inerrancy lead to bibliolatry?

We must remember something very important here: inerrancy is viewed through the prism of post-Enlightenment methdology mixed with Western European common sense realism philosophy. It is quite hard to extricate one from the other. But let's continue and see where this goes.

1) Inerrancy takes one's focus off of Christ and puts the believer in the unenviable position of defending something he's never seen as something authoritative. It allows skeptics and enemies of the faith to do something much more comfortable for most of them: to go after a book as opposed to going after the person of Jesus - whom they lionize as a great teacher and lover of mankind but Whom they want nothing to do with as Lord of their lives. It's a whole lot easier to blast an inantimate object (from their perspective) and seem to be nice as opposed to ripping Jesus personally. The ripping of Jesus only comes after 'proving' there are 'errors' in all the extant Bibles.

2) Nowhere are we told in Scripture to DEFEND the Word of God. I Peter 3:15-16 tells us to give an answer for the hope that is within us - not to 'defend the Word of God.'

Howard Hendricks has been a professor at DTS since 1952. Every single student is REQUIRED to take his class on Hermeneutics regardless of major. Hendricks often tells about people who engage in apologetic ministries and go out to 'defend God's Word,' laughing out loud and saying, "Apparently, God is incapable of doing such." We are never told to 'defend God's Word as inerrant;' we are told it is perfect, to delight in it, to believe it, and to search it.

3) The fallacy of equivocation. How often do we try to say the Bible is inerrant and then someone shows something like the account of the taxation during Christ's birth and whether or not Quirinius was governor? Or the claim in II Samuel that someone other than David killed the 'brother of' Goliath despite there being NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE that this is original?

So we hedge and say, "Well, that's a copyist error." Excuse me, but isn't that an error? It reminds me of Bill Clinton's claim that 'oral sex' wasn't 'really' sex despite the fact that 'sex' is the substantive in that phrase ('oral' is an adjective). So what we say is, "Well, the Bible has no errors, but it has copyist errors."

Why such a statement is not convincing to the unbeliever is indeed beyond me!!!

Now, I am quite sure you are missing the point of CSoF. I think we need a post to discuss this actual document.



We are now left on the horns of an evangelistic dilemma. If we're honest, we have to admit that inerrancy is an unprovable statement of faith. But this is not enough for some Christians - who mistake their own insecurities at evangelism for a lack of power in the message of the cross. So many go the next route: realizing they HAVE to have an 'inerrant text' in hand, they pick a translation and say that it is inerrant. The most common one, of course, is the KJV.

But what do you do when you encounter a translation error? Or when you have a situation like Matthew 27:9 where it says that Jesus claims an OT reference from Zechariah but says that it's from Jeremiah? What do you do?

Well, you can take the fundamentalist route and argue in two stages, claiming that Jesus was referencing the section of the prophets where Zechariah was and that Jeremiah was the most prominent book. John MacArthur does this in his NKJV study Bible (I haven't checked his NASV). You are reduced to arguing in a circle:

"Well, since there can't be an error here, we have to come up with an alternative" - and ultimately the Christian either loses his faith or engages in dishonesty.

Or you can do the other fundamentalist specialty: say that Jeremiah originally said it and then there's two routes: 1) cite similar verbiage from Jeremiah and claim it is true; or 2) state that a portion of the letter was lost.

And now you have to answer another question: assuming the KJV is perfect, where was the perfect Bible BEFORE 1611? (By perfect, I mean inerrant in this context). And then you have two other questions to answer:

1) If there was an inerrant text prior to 1611, how did it lose its inerrancy or get replaced?

2) Why is there NO text that matches the KJV EXACTLY word for word?

Now you have two choices, neither of them very good:

1) More equivocation or
2) Moving the goalposts

If you choose the former, you line up with Donald A. Waite's and David Cloud's of the world. You fudge on the word and refer to 'errors' as 'problems' but NEVER ADMIT they are errors. In short, you lie. And if you've ever read either one, you know that they don't just lie once.

If you choose the latter, you go the route of Peter Ruckman and say that the 1611 KJV was 'reinspired.' Thus, the 'mistakes' in the KJV are actually 'advanced revelation.'

Is God really honored by either?

And so you keep pounding the pulpit and publishing pamphlets to prove the inerrancy of a particular translation. D.A. Waite has written over 900 books advocating the absolute perfection of the KJV.

Can someone who writes over 900 books about a Bible translation as inerrant really be regarded as anything other than a bibliolator? The ranting and raving about the perfection of the extant text - over and over with distortion after distortion, ad hominem after ad hominem - these folks spend more time arguing in favor of the KJV than they do arguing Jesus is Lord.

Again, I say: bibliolatry.

It is probably not intentional, but they have moved the locus of allegiance off Christ and onto written words.


By such I am NOT saying Scripture is not authoritative for indeed it is. I do believe Scripture was given without error and thus would qualify as an inerrantist.

But it occupies so little of my time in apologetics.


M

An interesting rant, but I'm left with:

Deuteronomy 8:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=8&verse=3&version=31&context=verse)
He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

Once again, you are missing the whole point of this debate, which is that there is a defense for the Word of God, because it is being attacked. If you think this has nothing to do with the person of Christ, you haven't read the last 150 years of Church history.

The Church is called to be the pillar of truth. While you and Ted don't like the CSoF, I wish you would at least admit the Church did not abdicate its role, and I would hope you would admit that it shouldn't have.

[Tallen]

"If" being the operative word. While God does reveal himself through nature, fallen man cannot nor will not perceive this without the power of His word preached.

Agreed, that is why I put it in the terms of "law". While the witness of nature proclaims the reality of God, it is something that convicts the sinner and without the proclamation of the "gospel", there can be no salvation. This is where I agree with the idea that the word of God is a presentation of "law" and "gospel". One convicts and the other saves.


Ted, I think you are missing the point. CSoF was not an invention, but rather a defense of the faith. I think we need to hash out the CSoF, and see where you agree/disagree, because for the most part it was orthodoxy vs heresy.

Brett, I think I am looking at the issue of inerrancy in a broader picture than just the CSoF. It is a teaching that existed before the CSoF. Inerrancy is a shift in the Protestant paradigm that happened before the CSoF, and the CSoF is an unnecessary document to use as a test for fellowship, especially when one is pushing the pre-CSoF teaching of inerrancy as the CARM leadership is arguing.

In other words, CARM is using the CSoF as a spring board into another teaching. That is, that it is essential for one to hold a belief in an inerrant autographa in order to be considered an orthodox Christian. They have complicated the issue by 1) resorting to the CSoF to give credibility to 2) the idea that it is orthodox and necessary to believe in a pre-CSoF inerrancy.

Whether the CSoF is necessary to address modern heresy is not in question, although I don't believe that it is necessary, the already existing Reformed Confessions have addressed the modern heresy already. If one wants to agree with it and affirm it, that is OK by me, but it shouldn't be the test of whether or not fellowship is established. That is why, at least in my mind, if we pursue a conversation about the CSoF we need to divorce it from this conversation because it is in reality two differing issues. To me it would be like asking a Baptist to accept the Scott's Confession of Faith (1560) as the test of fellowship, claiming it was a necessary and ecumenical statement against heresy. It is unnecessary because the "real" Baptist already have a statement that addresses the issues, but yet they remain orthodox in the Christian faith. Fellowship is established in the blood and body of Christ, not in the confessions, creeds and statements of ecumenical bodies. These confessions and creeds are useful in witnessing to the orthodoxy of the church and it's sectaries. But fellowship is determined by something else.

1Co 10:15-17; 21 KJV I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. (16) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (17) For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread... (21) Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

[Tallen]

Both Ted and you seem to be missing the error that the CSoF was defending against.

I think there is some misunderstanding here Brett. I don't think we are missing the error, Neo-Orthodoxy, but we are separating the issue of inerrancy from the CSoF, as it existed prior to that statement. It seems that you and John have it in your minds that if one does not accept inerrancy one is against the CSoF, but in reality, we are talking past each other.

[Maestroh]

That in fact I DO assent to inerrancy. I just don't let it drive the train.

M

[JBaker45]

That in fact I DO assent to inerrancy. I just don't let it drive the train.

M
Hypothetical Q. for you :smile:

If you felt that such an affirmation were redundant, would you reject the SoF of a group that contained an affirmation of it?
(Or any redundant affirmation for that matter.)
And please offer a little explanation of your answer, if you would please.


Thanks,
John

[Tallen]

That in fact I DO assent to inerrancy. I just don't let it drive the train.

M

Which is the proper place for this whole discussion on infallibility/inerrancy in the first place. It doesn't drive the train and is not the issue that determines fellowship.

[Tallen]

If you felt that such an affirmation were redundant, would you reject the SoF of a group that contained an affirmation of it?


(Or any redundant affirmation for that matter.)

Personally, I would reject the SoF when this issue determines fellowship. The reason why is that it is not a biblical issue for doing such a thing. Also there could be other issues besides this one that would cause a person to reject a SoF, for instance Baptism, Eschatology, and Atonement, in one particular case I can think of. :wwink:

[raderag]

Which is the proper place for this whole discussion on infallibility/inerrancy in the first place. It doesn't drive the train and is not the issue that determines fellowship.

Ted, I would say that you are right insomuch that you hold to one of the two views. OTOH, inerrancy is usually not meant to be a hammer against the infallibility view, it is just not often understood.

[JBaker45]

[/indent]Personally, I would reject the SoF when this issue determines fellowship.:bigthink:
I've never heard of an organization who's members do not accept the SoF of the group.



The reason why is that it is not a biblical issue for doing such a thing. Also there could be other issues besides this one that would cause a person to reject a SoF, for instance Baptism, Eschatology, and Atonement, in one particular case I can think of. :wwink:
Okay. I do understand why we can not accept every groups SoF.

Particularly when one is in contradiction with another.

[Tallen]

Ted, I would say that you are right insomuch that you hold to one of the two views. OTOH, inerrancy is usually not meant to be a hammer against the infallibility view, it is just not often understood.

I agree, with both of your points.

I was in the process of writing a post looking through time from the Reformers to the modern view, and how this whole issue was addressed, when I noticed Bill's post yesterday looking back through time, HERE (http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/showpost.php?p=11628&postcount=1), so I decided not to post mine because he made some of the same points. But many of the same issues that are being addressed today were addressed by the Reformers as the RCC was coming up with reasons for the need of Papal preeminence as opposed to Sola Scriptura. And errancy/inerrancy was one of the issues that was addressed as the RCC used the argument that there were corrupted manuscripts and translations, so the ecclesiastical authority of the RCC was needed to tell the common man what to believe. The Reformers knew that this would be an issue, so they disarmed it by placing their emphasis upon the message of God rather than the quality of the text and the need for "extra" authority to tell folks what to believe.

Blessings brother.

[Tallen]

I've never heard of an organization who's members do not accept the SoF of the group.

I guess we are not communicating well John, because I don't know how this would apply to the question. If a person did not affirm the SoF and was honest about it, they couldn't be a part of the organization if the statement of faith was used to determine fellowship.