tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post1537630532792924312..comments2023-06-07T04:05:50.152-06:00Comments on ladybugblue: What about a Sensible Inerrancy?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-21481235115987593902007-09-15T18:28:00.000-06:002007-09-15T18:28:00.000-06:00In a message dated 13/9/07 22:00:09 GMT Daylight T...In a message dated 13/9/07 22:00:09 GMT Daylight Time, jane38@...<BR/>writes:<BR/><BR/><BR/>> "It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the<BR/>> true word of God."<BR/>> C. S. Lewis<BR/>> (To a Lady, 8 November 1952)<BR/>> Letters of C.S. Lewis, p. 247.<BR/>><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Just so! That is the difference between Christianity (on the one hand)<BR/>against Judaisn and Islam (on the other hand).<BR/>See John Barton's People Of the Book?<BR/>This argues that Christians are not people of the book in the same sense as<BR/>are Jews and Muslims.<BR/>Also see the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject of the special<BR/>relationship between Islam, Judaism and Christianity. <BR/><BR/>Anne Pladybugbluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02461950693123998021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-79781682935548790502007-09-15T18:27:00.000-06:002007-09-15T18:27:00.000-06:00Ann's mention of "seeking to explore the [biblical...Ann's mention of "seeking to explore the [biblical] meaning further" rather<BR/>than doubting or dismissing reminds me of what Lewis writes in "The Weight of<BR/>Glory," Reflections on the Psalms, and other places as well, when he starts<BR/>with a biblical passage he finds troubling or distasteful, and in exploring<BR/>it, finds great riches.<BR/><BR/>I acknowledge that there's quite a big difference between the problematic<BR/>passages in the Bible central to the debate about inerrancy, and the<BR/>devotional, pastoral interpretation that Lewis was engaged in, but the humility<BR/>of<BR/>always giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt and seeking to learn rather<BR/>than leaping to conclusions is the same in both cases. For me, the most<BR/>memorable example of Lewis' method is "The Weight of Glory."<BR/><BR/>In "The Weight of Glory," Lewis starts by exploring scriptural imagery that<BR/>says he finds unappealing, even baffling--i.e., personally problematic. His<BR/>exploration leads to unexpected riches, however. Lewis writes, "If I had<BR/>rejected the authoritative and scriptural image of glory and stuck obstinately<BR/>to the vague desire which was, at the outset, my only pointer to heaven, I<BR/>could have seen no connection at all between that desire and the Christian<BR/>promise. But now, having followed up what seemed puzzling and repellent in the<BR/>sacred books, I find, to my great surprise, looking back, that the connection<BR/>is perfectly clear."<BR/><BR/>I love this about Lewis, and I take it as a personal call to remain<BR/>teachable always when it comes to Scripture.<BR/><BR/>JanaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-32840465018057944972007-09-15T18:26:00.001-06:002007-09-15T18:26:00.001-06:00I generally put three times as many question marks...I generally put three times as many question marks in for the times in<BR/>which it's somehow to my benefit to interpret things a certain way!<BR/>This can apply to something practical in my life - some "rule" I'd<BR/>rather not follow - and in theological interpretations. I only took<BR/>enough theology classes to be minimally aware of the field, but it<BR/>amazes me how reading one text one way can become a key that turns the<BR/>interpretation of a slew (or would that be "slough"?!) of other texts<BR/>in the same direction. There's something to be said for logical<BR/>consistency, (theology matters!), but I can't help but think there are<BR/>times when it's "both-and" rather than "either-or". Predestination,<BR/>for example. Yes, God really gives us actual choices, and yes, God<BR/>really does know how things will turn out in the end.<BR/><BR/>I would love help with this, though. On the one hand, how do we avoid<BR/>believing blindly and having a naive faith that persists in spite of<BR/>flat contradictions from science, logic, or experience? On the other,<BR/>how do we avoid setting ourselves above a humble, learning attitude<BR/>toward Scripture, and merely picking and choosing at whim those things<BR/>which fit into our current understandings of ourselves and our world?<BR/><BR/>I'm just finishing the book _Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why<BR/>We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts_. It's<BR/>outstanding, and it ties directly into this question, for me. It<BR/>compelling exposes the dangers of being unable to back down from a<BR/>given point of view, citing harmful mistakes made by religious people,<BR/>therapists, doctors, prosecutors that only became more harmful when<BR/>they couldn't admit they'd made the mistakes. But how far down the<BR/>path of willingness to admit to being frail, mistaken, or prone to<BR/>error can we go before we drive ourselves mad, fearful of believing in<BR/>and living by anything?<BR/><BR/>There's got to be a good Lewis quote that deals with this (or McDonald<BR/>or Chesterton!); I would appreciate your insight!<BR/><BR/>AngelaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-1743733648295527622007-09-15T18:26:00.000-06:002007-09-15T18:26:00.000-06:00Don wrote, "I acknowledge that there are problems ...Don wrote, "I acknowledge that there are problems in the text, but I always<BR/>call them problems and not errors. Always give the benefit of the doubt to<BR/>the Text and not to the Critic is, I would argue, sound theology and sound<BR/>practice. You will go wrong least often that way."<BR/><BR/>I couldn't agree, more. ( Putting a question mark works for me.) I don't<BR/>think the Bible errs in matters of faith. For Christians the benefit of the<BR/>doubt should go toward the Bible. There have always been doubters who seek to<BR/>disprove rather than just explore the meaning further.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>AnnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-87648978465634135562007-09-15T18:25:00.000-06:002007-09-15T18:25:00.000-06:00I said that we should acknowledge "problems" in th...I said that we should acknowledge "problems" in the<BR/>text of Scripture but not presume to call them<BR/>"errors," always giving the benefit of the doubt to<BR/>the Text rather than to the Critic. To which Ray<BR/>replied,<BR/><BR/>"There are presumably no real problems in the text,<BR/>only ignorance in man and hubris."<BR/><BR/>Yes. Well said, Ray.<BR/><BR/>From the Falls of Henneth Annun,<BR/><BR/>DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-82750788092846274092007-09-15T18:24:00.000-06:002007-09-15T18:24:00.000-06:00There are presumably no real problems in the text ...There are presumably no real problems in the text only ignorance in<BR/>man and hubris. We variously imagine that the problems call scripture<BR/>into question on one extreme or that we can explain them on some<BR/>simple model in the other. The reality is that we don't know but<BR/>refuse to admit we don't know. Sometimes the proper thing to do is<BR/>pray in humble ignorance for illumination.<BR/><BR/>Regards, RayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-68282885447292452532007-09-15T18:22:00.001-06:002007-09-15T18:22:00.001-06:00"It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the ..."It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the<BR/> true word of God."<BR/><BR/> C. S. Lewis<BR/> (To a Lady, 8 November 1952)<BR/> Letters of C.S. Lewis, p. 247.<BR/><BR/>Janeladybugbluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02461950693123998021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-32686155230753857862007-09-15T18:22:00.000-06:002007-09-15T18:22:00.000-06:00Quoting Donald Williams > The doctrine of inerranc...Quoting Donald Williams <BR/><BR/>> The doctrine of inerrancy is about whether the Bible<BR/>> is inerrant, not whether my interpretation of it is.<BR/><BR/>Indeed. "Inerrancy" is often confused (by its supporters and<BR/>opponents alike) with "literalism", an entirely different thing. I<BR/>expect we all agree (at least those of us on this list) that not<BR/>everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, but it can still be<BR/>inerrant.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>Dan BrownAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-5400279408102939072007-09-15T18:20:00.000-06:002007-09-15T18:20:00.000-06:00This is the locus classicus for present discussion...This is the locus classicus for present discussions of biblical inerrancy.<BR/><BR/>http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html<BR/><BR/>victorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-3523417282329351932007-09-15T17:53:00.001-06:002007-09-15T17:53:00.001-06:00Thank you, Mr Williams, for pointing me in the dir...Thank you, Mr Williams, for pointing me in the direction of Francis Shaeffer's<BR/>book below. Is this the same Francis Shaeffer who is connected with L'Albri (or<BR/>however you spell it)? I've long wanted to visit or perhaps stay for a time at<BR/>one of the L'Albri places. I had not noticed that Mr. Shaeffer also wrote books.<BR/><BR/>Inerrancy is something I've come upon relatively recently. The church I was<BR/>raised in taught 'thought inspiration' in which theory the "inspiree" was worked<BR/>upon by the Holy Spirit but put the resulting inspiration in his or her own<BR/>fallible, human words. This was in part to leave room for that church's fallible<BR/>'messenger from the Lord' who wrote out her visions and testimonies with notable<BR/>confusion of facts and meanings.<BR/><BR/>Now that I'm no longer a part of that church, there is a whole world of teaching<BR/>in Christendom that I've yet to study. I do have down that Jesus is the Lord of<BR/>my life, that God is utterly trustworthy, that the Bible is inspired, and that<BR/>the good news of the Gospel is Salvation by faith "not of works lest any man<BR/>should boast." I also have developing (and a few firm) opinions on issues beyond<BR/>that.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for helping me along in my quest!<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>MaryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-42423958850713160252007-09-15T17:53:00.000-06:002007-09-15T17:53:00.000-06:00Thanks for clarifying on the encyclopedia. Here's ...Thanks for clarifying on the encyclopedia. Here's what Lewis actually says.<BR/><BR/>I have been suspected of being what is called a Fundamentalist. That is because<BR/>I never regard any narrative as unhistorical simply on the ground that it<BR/>includes the miraculous. Some people find the miraculous so hard to believe that<BR/>they cannot imagine any reason for my acceptance of it other than a prior belief<BR/>that every sentence of the Old Testament has historical or scientific truth. But<BR/>this I do not hold, any more than St. Jerome did when he said that Moses<BR/>described Creation “after the manner of a popular poet” (as we should say,<BR/>mythically) or than Calvin did when he doubted whether the story of Job were<BR/>history or fiction.7 (RTS) 105.<BR/><BR/>Twp things to notice. First, as Don points out, the inerrancy Lewis attributes<BR/>to the "fundamentalist" is a naive, not a theologically nuanced version of the<BR/>doctrine. Second, it looks as if Calvin (one of the premier champions of<BR/>biblical authority in the history of the Church) didn't hold this naive<BR/>doctrine. However, naive versions of the doctrine can easily be found in pews<BR/>and pulpits all across the evangelical community. Don seems to think Lewis was<BR/>"caricaturing" the position, but I think there are plenty of people who fit the<BR/>caricature to a T. It's just that he's not responding to a theologically<BR/>underdeveloped version of the doctrine.<BR/><BR/>My own view is that the question "Do you believe in inerrancy" is a little like<BR/>asking someone "do you believe in evolution?" Depending on how you explain the<BR/>doctrine, I might answer either question yes or no. I personally dislike the<BR/>word inerrancy, and prefer to ask "what hermeneutical constraints follow from<BR/>believing that Scripture is special revelation from God.<BR/><BR/>Evangelical groups committed to inerrancy sometimes do purge members whose<BR/>interpretations of Scripture do not square with inerrancy as they understand it.<BR/>Such was the case in the purging of Robert Gundry from the Evangelical<BR/>Theological Society a number of years ago, based on what they took to be<BR/>"errantist" interpretation of Matthew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16495281.post-36879088482852469452007-09-15T17:52:00.000-06:002007-09-15T17:52:00.000-06:00Dear friends,The Lewis encyclopedia Victor is refe...Dear friends,<BR/><BR/>The Lewis encyclopedia Victor is referring to is the<BR/>new 4-vol. Praeger one edited by Bruce Edwards, not<BR/>the 1-vol. "Reader's Encyclopedia" which is probably<BR/>more familiar to many.<BR/><BR/>I already addressed some of the questions in the<BR/>article referenced. Much as I respect John MacArthur,<BR/>I would have to say that he is just flat wrong in<BR/>saying that only a literal 6-day creation is<BR/>consistent with inerrancy. To say the Bible is<BR/>inerrant is distinct from saying that one<BR/>interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. On whether<BR/>other views of creation (day-age, gap theory, etc.)<BR/>are legitimate interpretations of Genesis, I recommend<BR/>Francis Schaeffer's book Genesis in Space and Time.<BR/>He does a careful exegesis of Genesis 1-3 to try to<BR/>establish the boundaries of what interpretations can<BR/>legitimately claim to be faithful to Scripture.<BR/>Strikingly, even though Schaeffer himself favored the<BR/>literal 6-day view, he very forthrightly concludes<BR/>that the other options cannot be eliminated on the<BR/>basis of the text, and that those who hold them should<BR/>not be accused of unbelief or of denying inerrancy.<BR/>The doctrine of inerrancy is about whether the Bible<BR/>is inerrant, not whether my interpretation of it is.<BR/><BR/><BR/>From Mr. Tumnus' Library,<BR/><BR/>DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com