How do you know what the “plain meaning” of a word is?

It depends on what your definition of the word “is” is. (JN)

And how do you reconcile this with the idea that Baptists and Presbyterians are both equally right about baptism?

Not what I said. Re-read, please. I never said that Baptists and Presbyterians were both equally right about baptism. I said that they both could back up their points of view from Scripture. We know that for one to be right is for the other to be wrong, but it’s one of those situations where we might never come to the correct interpretation. Hence, my viewpoint that it shouldn’t be a test of orthodoxy.

That being said, it is just fine, however, to hold to a certain position as a congregation or denomination, practice it, and require your elders to teach it and abide by it. But it’s not something Presbies should use to whack Baptists over the head with, and vice versa. My impression from personal experience is that it’s usually the credo-baptists who do the bashing, because most of them are against the flavor of covenantalism that paedo-baptism represents.

The funny thing is, paedo-baptist denominations uniformly also practice credo-baptism, when they baptize adult converts to the faith. The profession of faith that the PCA requires for an adult baptism is oddly similar to what SBC churches usually ask. I don’t know much about the Roman RCIA, but I expect that it’s a similar thing. So when somebody asks me whether I’m a credo or paedo baptist, it’s great fun to say “both!” :)

I explained my hermeneutic just fine, Phillip. Original audience, purpose, context, plain meaning of words. Standard grammatical-historical elements. I also said twice that I didn’t have time to write a detailed study right now. But because I don’t, you apparently think that I’m just regurgitating what someone else said instead of thinking for myself. You’re entitled to your opinion. But so that the rest of the bar doesn’t start agreeing with you, a few examples are in extended entry. More »« Less

Josh asks: How do y’all do those cute little indentations for quotes? I could never quite figure that one out.

Use the following

put your text here.

If anyone is interested in how the Culture Wars are shaking out in Moscow—two of our local “Intoleristas” (a term coined by Doug Wilson and that has struck a chord even with some local liberal newspaper editors) have taken Logos School before the County Commissioners for allegedly violating their tax-exempt status.

What’s the basis of the charges?

1. They are embarrassed by the term “Intolerista”
   
2. Logos School pays “generous” royalties to their staff for books that they write.
   
3. Logos Summer Training is “beyond the scope of a K12 school”
   
4. That Logos discriminates against women, disabled, etc
   
5. That Logos School performs highly—they are “screening students for academic potential”.

They are grasping at straws, but none the less this is a tremendous waste of time and resources for local ministries. These same ladies have brought complaints against New Saint Andrews, Christ Church, Anselm House, and Canon Press. It’s like using the law for religious harassment.

A spokesman for the Boar’s Head Tavern (BHT) announced today that their prize horse, ‘Inerrancy’, died of complications associated with logic. “She was a magnificent animal, a real accomplishment for our team of scientists,” claimed M. Johnson, referring to the groundbreaking re-animation experiment successfully conducted at the BHT. “We’ve been ahead of those folks from Pittsburgh from day one. All they could manage to re-animate was a wimpy dog that had been dead for only a few hours,” bragged Johnson. He is referring to the unofficial competition between the BHT and the Safar Center for Resuscitation Research (website). More »« Less

Ted wrote:

Under the thoughts of perspicuity (clarity), it is asserted that you do not have to be a bible scholar to understand the Scriptures rightly. Scripture is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by ordinary believers.

I’m going to sound like a total elitist here, but the sorts of conclusions that “ordinary believers” come to when confronted with unfamiliar scriptures are whack. I’m all for people reading their Bibles, but if we think that untrained Americans can read a bunch of documents written centuries ago by nomads and understand them properly, we are crazy. Heck, the only reason why many passages of scripture are intelligible to me is because I’ve been spoon-fed their interpretation since I was a child.

Here’s an extended quote from Wayne Grudem on the role of scholars in the church. He’s answering the question: given the perspicuity of the Bible, why do we need teachers:

Is there any role then for Bible scholars or for those with specialized knowledge of Hebrew (for the Old Testament) and Greek (for the New Testament)? Certainly there is a role for them in at least four areas:

1. They can teach Scripture clearly, communicating its content to others and thus fulfilling the office of “teacher” mentioned in the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11).
   
2. They can explore new areas of understanding the teachings of Scripture. This exploration will seldom (if ever) involve denial of the main teachings the church has held throughout its centuries, but it will often involve the application of Scripture to new areas of life, the answering of difficult questions that have been raised by both believers and unbelievers at each new period in history, and the continual activity of refining and making more precise the church’s understanding of detailed points of interpretation of individual verses or matters of doctrine or ethics. Though the Bible may not seem large in comparison with the vast amount of literature in the world, it is a rich treasure-house of wisdom from God that surpasses in value all the other books that have ever been written. The process of relating its various teachings to one another, synthesizing them, and applying them to each new generation, is a greatly rewarding task that will never be completed in this age. Every scholar who deeply loves God’s Word will soon realize that there is much more in Scripture than can be learned in any one lifetime!
   
3. They can defend the teachings of the Bible against attacks by other scholars or those with specialized technical training. The role of teaching God’s Word also at times involves correcting false teachings. One must be able not only “to give instruction in sound doctrine” but also “to confute those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9; cf. 2 Tim. 2:25, “correcting his opponents with gentleness”; and Titus 2:7-8). Sometimes those who attack biblical teachings have specialized training and technical knowledge in historical, linguistic, or philosophical study, and they use that training to mount rather sophisticated attacks against the teaching of Scripture. In such cases, believers with similar specialized skills can use their training to understand and respond to such attacks. Such training is also very useful in responding to the false teachings of cults and sects. This is not to say that believers without specialized training are incapable of responding to false teaching (for most false teaching can be clearly refuted by a believer who prays and has a good knowledge of the English Bible), but rather that technical points in arguments can only be answered by those with skills in the technical areas appealed to.
   
4. They can supplement the study of Scripture for the benefit of the church. Bible scholars often have training that will enable them to relate the teachings of Scripture to the rich history of the church, and to make the interpretation of Scripture more precise and its meaning more vivid with a greater knowledge of the languages and cultures in which the Bible was written.

Sure, Ted, but you’ve supplied no scripture to support your position. You lack a hermaneutical basis for what you’ve stated, in that you’ve given no criteria for determine which statements apply to us as well as the disciples, and which don’t. Is it your own opinion? The testimony of the historical church? I can’t wait to hear a hard-core protestant start relying heavily on that one. {:)} Or, if there are other passages that make all of this clear, then feel free to quote some of them.

The truth is that I read a little of “it’s this way because I’ve been told it’s this way, or read it’s this way,” and that’s what I’m trying to get you to see. You know of things about the Bible, including some which I think just ain’t so. You’re reading a lot into the Bible that isn’t where you’re reading it. If you want to demonstrate that falsity of the pentecostal belief that our experience with the Holy Spirit should not be expected to be any different from that of the first-century church (you said “apostles,” but clearly Acts demonstrates that the circle was much wider than that), you’re going to have to argue from something other than your experience and observation of the folks with whom you hang.

Really, I’m not trying to be picky, but it’s the little tidbits here and there that start to add up and bother me. Like the suggestion that only the apostles had a certain experience with the Holy Spirit, contra scripture. When someone claims to hold every single jot and tittle of the Bible as inerrant—by nearly any definition—and then plays fast and loose with vocabulary, well, I get nervous.

It’s obvious that we’re supposed to love each other. Of course. It’s similarly obvious that the Spirit or Truth indwells us and teaches us all things, isn’t it? The hermaneutic that obviously supports one sentence as applying equally to us today and another sentence as not applying to us at all must be a little more than just obvious, I think.

As I said before, I don’t have time to write down an extended study on the Upper Room Discourse right now. And I never said that Christ’s words therein did not apply to us today at all. What I said was, they were initially directed at the apostles, because that’s who Christ was talking to at the time. But you can’t just blanket take everything He told the twelve, and apply it to us without any discernment. Jesus’ primary purpose in those passages was to give the apostles the authority to preach His Word to the world, and to tell them how it was going to be for them as they did it.

It’s a matter of interpretation vs. application. To properly interpret Christ’s words, we look to whom He was addressing Himself and the context of the conversation. The application is different. People who apply the text haphazardly (for instance, many Charismatics) might mistakenly conclude that our experience of the Holy Spirit must be exactly that of the apostles, or that the office of apostle is for today (latter-day prophets), and thus go off in a wrong direction. Correct interpretation leads to proper application. Yes we are supposed to love each other, that’s obvious. Yes we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, but in a different way and for different reasons than the Apostles were. This is already getting longer than I wanted, so I hope this time at least I’ve made myself somewhat clear.

I couldn’t help myself, and I called Peter Popoff’s “ministry” and asked them to send me some of their “Miracle Spring Water,” just to see what would come of it. I did receive said elixer, and then more, and then more. I have also received five pennies taped to a “personal” letter from “Prophet Popoff” (I was supposed to place them in various places—with my secret money stash, under my pillow, etc—and then send one back to him. Or something.), a birthday candle and a length of yarn (I didn’t read closely on that one, but I was supposed to tie the yarn around something and pray. Or something.), a fake million dollar bill, and numerous requests for “seed offerings” of $15 or $20.
Most of it is funny and weird, but that last part is just depressing. If he had asked me for hundreds of dollars, it wouldn’t have been quite as depressing. The low amount means he is begging money of people for whom 15 to 20 bucks is a sacrifice. What a scumbag.
I am probably a bad person who needs to repent of his spirit of vindictiveness (and maybe have a demon or two cast out, eh?), because I ripped out all references to my name and sent back all the crap in the postage-paid envelopes. Just striking a small monetary blow against the overwhelming tide of BS.

Please pray for me and my family. I have accepted a position at Lexington Community College, and will be moving VERY soon. I have a house to sell, a house to buy, and very little time to do it. But we are excited! This means freedom to work on my PhD and MFA.

Sorry I can’t post more—I realize this is a group blog, and I don’t even know many of you. I hope my life calms down sometime so I can post more. Peace to you all!

Wait, a female version of the Tinklings? But… Hmmm… How will I ever distinguish them? Tinklings vs Sprinklings, maybe? Tinklings vs ??? I’m confused.

Yeah, good ole Van Til—it’s true because I say it is! Actually, I like Van Til and presuppositional apologetics in general. Withins the contexts in which such things are valuable, Van Til is great. Not everybody responds well to presup apologetics, though, and it is our challenge to constantly find the best way to present the gospel. Never moving Christ crucified from the center, of course.

I realized when I posted it that it was my longest post ever. And it’s a one-liner compared to Joel’s posts ;-)

Seriously, though, the only comment directed toward Ted was the deal about being afraid. The rest was a general rant about inerrancy and propositional exegesis.

Back to sermon prep…

The female version of the “thinklings” began by Marla Swoffer has begun over at evangelical outpost. One of the members there cited Cornelius Van Til as one of her main inspirational authors – she works in presuppositional appologetics. I was curious, is this who our little dog friend is named after?????

Annie: I’m a huge fan of the Hoover WindTunnel bagless with embedded DirtFinder, $160 at Wal-Mart. It’s the shizzle.

And yeah, it should be noted that Ted has been ever-gracious even while my ire was rising. So blinkered in some ways he may be, but so was I when I stumbled into the BHT and ordered my first round (thanks for reminding me out in the alley behind the tavern, Kurt), and he’s done a yeoman’s job of taking the licking and ticking away. Let me buy your next drink, Ted. Cheers!

(peeks up from behind the bar…)

Let me try to draw some of the fire away from Ted and turn the “inerrancy” subject back to how the Bible reveals Christ to us. Please comment on the following quote…

“The question has been raised in our times, and discussed with considerable ardor, whether it is with “proposition” that the Church confronts the world, or with “Person”. Related to this question is the question whether the Church has a “propositional” confession. It must be granted that the New Testament knows nothing of a non-propositional faith; nor of a non-propositional revelation. The historic Christian faith has looked upon the act of faith as credere from one point of view and fidere from another point of view; the former one does vis-a-vis Proposition and the latter one vis-a-vis Person. Actually therefore this is not a matter of either-or; it is a matter of both-and. There can be no encounter with Person except through the medium of speech. One must be Schriftglaubig before he can be Christglaubig. The Word-Incarnate is not dissociable from the Word-Inscripturated. In the light of this, our assertion, that the main stock and trade of authentic Christianity was the Word, must be seen.” – Leonard Verdiun, The Reformers and their Stepchildren, pg. 133

Or to put the italicized sentence into my own language – you cannot really know a person except by speaking to them, and their speaking to you. Relationship is predicated on language. That goes for God, too…

(gets ready to duck back behind the bar… peeks up once more)

Michael, why do you keep going back into those places? Can’t you find a nice secular substitute for Testamints, for crying out loud? (SW)

On a different note, I frightened Tommy yesterday. He came home to hear that I had spent 3 hours with a Kirby salesman (much to the neglect of dinner and naps) and actually filled out an entire purchase form and everything, signature, checking account number and all for a $1900 vacuum. I still think they are great vacuums and want one, BTW. But I had this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, knowing that I had violated our financial rules on impulse purchases. The Kirby guy even gave me an $80 “wife alone” discount! While he was fidling with some papers, I had the saving thought to look up “Kirby” on clark howard real quick. (I leave my laptop up and running on the table at all times.) A three second venture revealed that Kirby’s are no better than $150 vacuums. I tore up the paper and quickly ushered the red-faced stunned sales man out the door.

Later that day I managed to start a fire in the oven that melted the outside knobs as well.

Hope I save you from an over-priced vacuum purchase. My dad laughed at the story and say he and mom still speak of “the day the Kirby man came” . . . If you haven’t, check out clarkhowardDOTcom. Great site.

Hey gang! It’s the iMonk…blogging from “Beyond the Brim” coffeeshop in Owensboro, Ky. This is all new to me and I am loving it. Wifi the world!

The entire inerrancy discussion was done over at IM a couple of months ago as a howling mob threw me out of the Reformed tent for refusing to use a word the WCF doesn’t use. Ted has been 120% more gracious than that gang, and I’m grateful. But this is more a discussion of what we already believed and brought in here. I haven’t heard anyone say those who differ with them are unbelievers, so maybe we’ve said all we need to say? That’s not a dead horse btw, just a suggestion that we’re starting to sound like ourselves in continual loop.

But this whole discussion prompted Matthew’s longest post ever, and that is cool.

I’m working with mom (now almost totally blind) to get all her money where its doing something besides collecting dust…and giving me access to all of it. I can really see how many depraved and selfish persons take the opportunity to drain the family accounts behind mom’s back. I realize how my dad worked for whatever mom has, and I hope I can always remember what it means to be a good steward.

A brief stop in the Christian bookstore last night. Argh! DOUBLE UGH. Gack. Choke. I don’t know what to say; it’s just amazing.

I may try to come back in here and blog a bit tomorrow, but until then, pray for our trip home via Clay’s concert at Stephen Foster Music Camp in Richmond. We have high hopes this will make a huge difference in his senior year and in his journey towards college. I am praying God really shows Clay where his gifts and talents are, and he pursues them with joy.

Peace and iMonkish greetings till tomorrow!

In that case, Ted, you are in the distinct minority among people who apply the word “inerrancy” to the Bible today. Which I believe I said at least two days ago, so who’s not reading whom? {:)}

After all of this, however, I’m too tired to even call you on the dozen or so outlandish statements you made in support of a position you apparently don’t even hold. I mean, large portions of John 14-17 doesn’t apply to us? I guess we shouldn’t love one another as Christ loves us, we don’t have the Holy Spirit today, etc. Anybody who disagrees with you is afraid, but you don’t think you always have the correct interpretation? Yeah. The apostles had perfect illumination? I’m still laughing at that one! Whatever!

Seriously, you’ve consistently ignored any objections to your statements, and all I’ve ignored so far is a John Frame link to another website, late in the game. You’ve made many, many assertions to which various fellows have provided counter-evidence, and… nothing. That’s perfectly fine behavior for a weblog, but this is a group blog. It’s un-cool here.

For what it’s worth, as an ex-fundamentalist, I have a serious problem being gracious when I encounter fundamentalism, whether identified as such or not. It’s my problem, not yours, and I’m sorry. Please pray for me to be as gracious in those situations as I am in most others. Or even more so. {:)}

Hoo boy. Okay. I think I understand what’s been going on. There’s been a couple of communication issues. One is, some of you seem to be using a different definition of ‘inerrancy’ than I am. Another is, people seem to be ignoring large parts of my posts and aren’t reading the links I’m posting. So, I think I’ll just do an iMonk style list and leave it at that.

I believe the WCF and Chicago Statement positions on the Bible are correct.
I believe the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs, defined as “free from error or falsehood”, i.e, true. Copies can have errors, therefore they are to be trusted only as far as they accurately reflect the original.
I believe that 99% (or more) of the text of our current copies is an accurate reflection of the originals.
I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
I believe the Bible is infallible (cannot be wrong) as a rule of faith and practice, and for the purposes for which God intended it.
I do not attempt to test the Bible using 21st century ideas of accuracy.
I believe the grammatical-historical method is the best hermeneutic.
I do not treat the Bible as a textbook, a list of propositions, nor do I in any way ignore the historical context, literary style, or original language translation issues that affect how a text is read. I embrace them.
I belive that there is only one proper interpretation of any given passage of Scripture, even though there may be many different applications.
I do not believe that I always have the proper interpretation.

I going to agree with Phillip and Tom and Annie. I don’t want to sound like Bill Clinton, but “error” is a word that we throw around that might not apply to the Bible in the manner we think it might (convoluted enough for you?). I am beginning to understand Tom Wright’s frustration with the lasting affects of the Enlightenment. We look at the Bible from our modernist and post-modernists glasses and impose, anachronistically, a definition of “error” that suits us today as if we, the enlightened, are the arbiters of what is true and error-free.

I call BS and think it’s a joke to talk about “2005 standards for accuracy in communication” and how much more refined we are than those writing down the history and story of Israel. Rathergate is just the tip of the iceberg – we are no less bias and error free than those recording ancient documents. If we can’t impose our standards of historical accuracy upon ourselves, what right do we have to impose them on the Bible? I guess that’s neither here nor there, mostly a rant which has taken me away from what I really wanted to say so I apologize. Anyway…

Here’s my problem with inerrancy. Actually, it’s really the problem I have with what I have seen of Calvinist exegesis. Let me preface this by saying two things about me and my background 1) I am a literature guy who is big on story and how it develops 2) which plays into the fact that I’m a big picture guy. I learned early on in my seminary days a simple rule for looking at the Bible – “don’t get bogged down in the details.” Details come in later steps but only after one has grasped the big picture. What is the big picture? That the Triune Creator God established a covenant with Israel through which all the world would be blessed and, while Israel was unfaithful to the stipulations of that covenant, God remained faithful and fulfilled Israel’s part of the covenant through his own son and Israel’s messiah, Jesus Christ through whom all the world is blessed. One day he will return and put all the world to rights and recreate all of creation, including us, the Body of Christ. THAT is inerrant. Although we study the details in order to get a better grip on that big picture, it doesn’t matter whether we think our position as snot-nosed modernists or post-modernists gives us the authority to determine error in those details. It’s irrelevant.

Why did I mention Calvinist exegesis? I love John Piper and have benefitted greaty from his writings. I own a copy of his booklet on Biblical Exegesis and, if it is standard operating procedure for exegesis in the Calvinist world, it has drawn that community into some serious Biblical myopia. I know from experience because I put his method to use. The strength is its serious study of structural realtionships. It’s weakness, and in my opinion the downfall of this methodology, is that it reduces Scripture to a set of propositions by studying those relationships one verse at a time. There are larger structural relationships within whole books that flavor the relationships of paragraphs, sentences, and terms. If one doesn’t grasp the larger relationships it makes it darn near impossible to interpret the details in a fully informed way. Can’t see the forest for the trees. I know I’m stepping on toes and I’m not doing it to be mean, but I’m tired of seeing the Bible reduced to a series of propositions that ultimately strips God’s unbelievable story of salvation of it’s power and majesty.

I am not afraid of anything, Ted. Actually, I take that back. I am afraid and inerrancy has nothing to do with it. I’m afraid that I am going to study diligently the Book of Life and, with a prior commitment to follow where it leads, find my life and my world radically out of tune with God. I am scared to death and I’m honest about it. Inerrancy is safe. It means that I’ve already figured out what God wants before studying Scripture and there won’t be any surprises. It means that I study Scripture rather than having Scripture study me (HT to Mark Driscoll).

Thanks, Annie. I think it should be clear by now, but in case it’s not I’ll make the point again explicitly: I am not arguing for error or falsehood in scripture. I do not think that there is error or falsehood in scripture. I have said before and will say again that the Bible is without error.

And again, if that’s all people meant when they use the word “inerrant,” I’d be fine with that. But as we’ve seen demonstrated by Ted, that is clearly not all most people mean. Heck, I might even be willing to stipulate that the Bible is inerrant so long as you stipulate that you’re not, but I’m pretty sure that such a stipulation would mean nothing in practice, based on what I’ve been reading the last couple of days.

In other words, the section headings (you’re welcome, Matthew), chapter breaks, footnotes, and commentary aren’t inerrant by any stretch of the imagination, and I’m seeing more commentary than Bible quoted here lately.

Jesus Christ is perfect. All else—even the Bible, which points to Christ and reveals Him—is something less than that.

Whew, lively in here lately :-) My humble thoughts on inerrancy – You cannot escape that the Bible is written, particularly the OT, as literature and not as a spinoza-like list of proprositions. This point has been made often here.

I think Ted (?) made an interesting slip when he said “error or falsehood” – Literature, because of the employment of literary devices as well as the effect of cultural context, can’t be analyzed according to technical “error” in a ridged way – Applying the same laws of analysis that you would to a computer manual. But you can analyze it in terms of falsehood and deception, which I would assume we all hold. God does not try to decieve us in His word, although He didn’t require it to be written to NASA standards.

Here is an important thought to me; If God wanted the Bible to be written according to a clear standard of inerrancy, He certainly could have. Yes, I believe that Christ has made Truth (Himself) and salvation clear to the simple, so that you do not have to be a scholar to read John and see Jesus and believe. But if the whole Bible were so clear there would not be hundreds of years of study and searching represented by just this bar with such confusion still remaining. So God made much of His scriptures difficult. Why? Perhaps so that we might not think that in them we have life, but be pushed to faith in Christ alone, the actual one who is the incarnate, living Word.

So why do we tend to cling to a ridged view of inerrancy? Why do people freak out and call imonk postmodern, and I bet liberal as well? My personal little theory is that the acceptance of truths is tied to our emotional, circumstantial and spiritual life. We will not asent to certain ideas or truths if they threaten other things in life upon which we have much investment it. Example, can’t believe in hell because daddy hated God.

Inerrancy seems uniquely strong in America. Could it be that all our independant Bible churches’ existance is somewhat built upon it? Just me and my 100% word for word perfect NIV and me can go and establish a church just fine without all the baggage of the histroical church, thank you.

Just a few thoughts I am throwing out.

Yesterday we needed to dogpile our clients in the bathroom because of a nearby tornado; which actually turned out to be a fun and sweet bit of time. They trust us so incredibly to care for them.

But it’s been a tough weather season for many neighbors who do not live in the hills and woods like we do, which breaks up the weather, including tornados. Please pray for our ‘flatland’ neighbors, many of whom are still trying to cut trees away from damaged roofs as the rain continues to fall. We had 2-3 inches just yesterday.

Minnesotans are awesome, they crawl out of the basement of a smashed home, leading their children. They look around at their totalled yard and get to work cleaning up saying: “Well, it could of been worse…”

Dale, in my post linking clarity and inerrancy I was mining without quoting the statement that Ted made:

We argue about things that the Bible is not clear on, and which in the end may prove to be irrelevant, or not.

It is hard for me to accept the concept that the Bible in toto is written clearly, especially considering the amount of work I put into understanding it. Maybe it’s as Jesse says, maybe my cultural baggage makes it tougher because of all of the wild interpretations I’ve heard.

I do find that my clients who are believers, and developmentally disabled, can have a pretty good grip on who Jesus is, but they are going by what they are told…by fellow believers and the Holy Spirit.

My own view of “The Bible” is that it’s a big honkin’ collection of ancient literature which is as Abraham Heschel says:

“The Bible is primarily not man’s vision of God but God’s vision of man. The Bible is not man’s theology but God’s anthropology, dealing with man and what He asks of man rather than with the nature of God.”

What God ultimately asks of man through this collection of ancient literature is that we respond to His Son the Messiah. Inerrancy means ‘without error’ to me, which is a leap (of logic, not of faith). It obviously means something else to Ted and others who believe in such a doctrine; I consider God, His Son and Spirit inerrant, I’m not willing to elevate ‘the Bible’ to such a level.

PS: I’m not reformed, Michael never said I had to be to come here to drink.

This is so tiresome I can’t stand it. Ted, on what basis do you claim that John 14-17 is not directed at us? Is that opinion inerrant too?

1) No, the idea that the Bible does not match 2005 standards for accuracy in communication doesn’t diminish it’s authority or worth in any way. I trust the Bible implicitly to be accurate in the message it conveys, which is always and in every case the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t need it to distinguish aquatic physiology by modern standards, nor do I need to resolve irrelevant things like mismatched creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, or mismatched ordering of events in the synoptic Gospels. If I was seeking an authoritative history of the first century that matched up to current standards for historical records, I might be alarmed, but I’m not. I’m seeking the revealed Word of God which is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. Why does something have to line up with arbitrary 2005 western standards in order to be authoritative? Here’s the funny thing: you believe the same thing I do, and can’t see the circular reasoning and rationalization you do to excuse the Bible from the sorts of issues real historians see in it.

2) I’m afraid of people who can’t seem to separate the Bible itself from their own interpretation and application of it, and label them both inerrant in order to give their personal views an authority they don’t have. It’s a rational fear, I see it every day, including right here in the BHT, as it happens. What exactly are you afraid of? Monsters under the bed? This is a stupid, pointless, and immature child’s game. It isn’t enough that you’re right, you have to be somehow morally superior as well? Come on—that’s just silly.

What are you afraid of? Are you so shy of an encounter with the living God that you seek refuge in a book? Are you afraid to deal with the Bible as a book that you elevate it to something it’s not in order to dismiss any questions about difficult passages? Are you trying to pretend misordered events and other trivial issues aren’t there so you don’t have to think about them? Are you afraid that admitting that certain things don’t line up with modern historical standards will undermine the authority of scripture? Obviously you are, based on your first question.

Like I said, a stupid game.

Josh writes: “I’m wondering what “inerrant” even means at this point.”

Quite right. I have the ability to write and say inerrant things (my wife’s name; how many kids I have; their names; etc).

The bigger question is one of infallibility.

pax,
Dale

I wrote:

Authority (with a subset being inerrancy)

Is that “official” or just your take? Did Calvin ever use the word “inerrant” or “inerrancy?” Because the Bible can be authoritative without being inerrant.

Are you afraid that if one error can be found the whole thing will unravel? Because it won’t. Don’t hold onto inerrancy out of fear.

It would seem closer to a neo-orthodox position to affirm authority without inerrancy/infallibility.

As I mentioned before, I’m a Chicago Statement kind of guy; as well as what my pastor calls a black-coffee, crawl-over-glass Calvinist :)

pax,
Dale

I’m not afraid of anything. You can’t even get out of the first two chapters of Genesis without there being a contradiction (first creation story: animals created before man, second creation story: man created before animals—THEY CANNOT BE RECONCILED). So how can it be inerrant?

It really pisses me off that inerrantists have to read some sinister motives by non-inerrantists, like they are trying to get away with something. My non-belief in inerrancy comes from a close reading of the Scripture and nothing else. No motives.

Oh, and I forgot to say: Dale, excellent post!!! Buy that man a beer.

Excellent (but long) article on inerrancy by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen here.

Shorter, but just as excellent, article by John Frame defining inerrancy in its classic, historical sense, explaining the basis for it, and explaining the common present-day misuses of the term.

The masthead quote by Kirkegaard just proves the old axiom that a broken clock is still right twice a day. :)

Have those of you who are trying to insult me by calling me “Van Til” realized that I take it as a compliment? :)

Phillip: Define ‘cessationist’ and then I’ll tell you. :) I’ve heard the word used to mean different things.

As for chapter and verse on the Holy Spirit and my item #2, see the Upper Room Discourse and the High Priestly Prayer. In other words, John chapters 14-17. Many people mistakenly assume that all of Christ’s words in these chapters were directed to all believers from that point forward. However, contextually, much of what Christ said was directed only to the apostles, and was about them, not us. There are several places where Christ tells the apostles that the Holy Spirit will guide them in truth, help them to recall His teachings, and to transmit them to other believers, and that those other believers will believe Christ’s words through their words.

A complete breakdown could consume an entire book so it’s beyond the scope of BHT to post it, and I don’t have time to write it right now. It’s a good subject for a Bible study, though, so maybe in the future I’ll put one together and run a class on it at my church.

For those of you who bristle at the term “inerrancy”, I have a couple of questions I’d like you to answer:

1) If the Scriptures contain error or falsehood, doesn’t that diminish their authority? If not, why not? How can you find something authoritative for your life if you can’t trust it?

2) What exactly are you afraid of? Is there something in the Scriptures that you want to pretend isn’t there, so you can’t be held accountable? Is that why you want to believe that there are mistakes in the Bible, so you can dismiss the “uncomfortable” passages, or those that don’t conform to your idea of what reality should be?

As long as we’re playing dogpile-on-Ted, I find this curious:

Under the thoughts of perspicuity (clarity), it is asserted that you do not have to be a bible scholar to understand the Scriptures rightly. Scripture is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by ordinary believers.

I’m going to sound like a total elitist here, but the sorts of conclusions that “ordinary believers” come to when confronted with unfamiliar scriptures are whack. I’m all for people reading their Bibles, but if we think that untrained Americans can read a bunch of documents written centuries ago by nomads and understand them properly, we are crazy. Heck, the only reason why many passages of scripture are intelligible to me is because I’ve been spoon-fed their interpretation since I was a child.

Is that “official” or just your take? Did Calvin ever use the word “inerrant” or “inerrancy?” Because the Bible can be authoritative without being inerrant.

Are you afraid that if one error can be found the whole thing will unravel? Because it won’t. Don’t hold onto inerrancy out of fear.

Kent asks: “I’m wondering if one aspect of ‘inerrancy’ would be absolute ‘clarity’; what do you think?”

From a Reformed perspective, we typically see four main characteristics of Scripture:

• Authority (with a subset being inerrancy) .
  
• Perspicuity
  
• Necessity
  
• Sufficiency

One of the things that we often forget is that a right-understanding of the scriptures is more a moral and spiritual ability than an intellectual ability.

“The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts (literally “things”) of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).

The things necessary to our justification and sanctification are perfectly clear.

pax,
Dale

Hey! It just occurred to me that Ted might be the guy I’ve been looking for ever since I joined the BHT. One of my first questions was whether anyone would sign up as a cessationist, so I could ask some questions, and nobody would cop to hardcore cessationism. Darn that sovereignty of God stuff! Anyway, this stuff about special revelation ending in 70AD makes me think… well, Ted, how about it? Are you a… cessationist?

Ted: “This things cannot be disputed, though.” I dispute them. Some of them. On what basis do you claim that they cannot be disputed? I’d even allow circular reasoning, but not even the Bible makes the claims you do!

“1) Jesus taught that the Scriptures (OT) were the Word of God, and confirmed their authority.” Agreed. Nobody in this bar is questioning the authority of scripture.

“2) Jesus promised to give the Spirit of Truth to the Apostles, and those they directed, so that the NT could be written inspired and inerrant just like the OT was. The Apostles were a special case, not to be repeated.” Can I get a chapter and verse on that? Specifically, I’m looking for a place in which Jesus promises to send a Spirit to the apostles (and their designees) but not us. My understanding was that the Spirit of Truth to which He referred was in fact the Holy Spirit, who is here with us today. Also, you’ve put in a “so that…” clause I don’t remember reading in the Bible either. The NT is inspired, sure, but inerrant? I just don’t remember reading that anywhere.

“3) The Holy Spirit gives every believer illumination of the Bible, and it is expected that we will cherish and study it as God’s Word, and as a means of grace, teaching, correction, equipping, etc. all the stuff that the NT writers talk about.” Agreed, completely. It’s profitable for all sorts of things. A means of grace? Well, preaching is a means of grace, so I’ll give it to you.

“The illumination given us is not perfect (unlike that of the Apostles).” You’re 100% sure that the illumination given to the apostles was perfect? Really? Do you want to read over the bit where Paul and Peter mixed it up and had to call a council to settle things before you answer?

See, nobody is questioning what the Bible says. We’re just questioning the things you’re adding and seeming to represent gospel truth, when in fact they’re based on reason and interpretation and so on. That’s the big danger of a doctrine of inerrancy; nobody seems to be willing to accept that it begins and ends with the Bible and doesn’t extend to “my pet interpretation.” I’m not even saying (at this point) that you’re wrong, just pointing out that the things you say aren’t actually in the Bible.

And sorry for getting back into this, but Michael’s gone.

Ted, I’m wondering if one aspect of ‘inerrancy’ would be absolute ‘clarity’; what do you think?

I do agree that we ‘disagree on things’.

Just a note of (*sigh) clarification again, after saying it a few times I guess I still wasn’t clear: I am not saying that one must believe that Scripture is true before believing in Christ. What I am saying is, that the two go hand in hand. Some Christians come to believe because they are convinced of the truth of the Bible. I am one of those. Others come to believe by witnessing, preaching and teaching, and discover the truth of the Scriptures afterward as the Holy Spirit guides them. Either way, same result.

These things cannot be disputed, though: 1) Jesus taught that the Scriptures (OT) were the Word of God, and confirmed their authority. 2) Jesus promised to give the Spirit of Truth to the Apostles, and those they directed, so that the NT could be written inspired and inerrant just like the OT was. The Apostles were a special case, not to be repeated. 3) The Holy Spirit gives every believer illumination of the Bible, and it is expected that we will cherish and study it as God’s Word, and as a means of grace, teaching, correction, equipping, etc. all the stuff that the NT writers talk about. The illumination given us is not perfect (unlike that of the Apostles). Our sin nature interferes. Interpretations become muddled. We disagree on things. We argue about things that the Bible is not clear on, and which in the end may prove to be irrelevant, or not. Sure we’ll all sin to some degree when speaking about God’s Word. But we try and work through this stuff because we are Christians and we’re supposed to.

We’re also supposed to have unity of belief on the essentials. Christ prayed to the Father for us in this regard. Despite doctrinal differences, if you look at the church through history, once it was agreed upon what the essentials were, they pretty much remained intact, even in the RCC where they’ve been distorted, but again, not beyond recognition.

Erk, sorry for the double post, folks. I don’t know how I did that.

Could one of you wizards do your hand-waving thing and, you know, feed the XML a little RSS blogroll or some sauteed !337z r0xx0rs LOL!!111!! to remove the second post? [Update: Thanks!]

Read stuff Alex writes (I haven’t forgotten your post on perception—it’s coming). He knows how to say stuff like “begging the question” the right way.

On a slightly tangential subject, I finally posted the More »« Less, so if any of y’all are interested in that subject, read and comment.

Michael wrote: I am the worst writer in the world. (...) OK…enough. I’m gone for three days. Have a nice time.

Well, finally. Now the good writers can get a word in edge-wise.

On a serious note, from my stool at the kiddie table, may I just say to Judd: applause. (Although for my own sake, I’m very nervous that he might get Peter’s job at the pearly gates. NOT THAT HE WOULDN’T DO A GREAT JOB, MIND YOU. I’m just a little less confident of my own standing, that’s all. Carry on.)

So…tomorrow is “Guys Movie Night” at our church. The main feature is Chariots of Fire. It’s been 20 years since I’ve seen this. All I really remember about it is the soundtrack. Remember when Vangelis was doing every single freaking score in Hollywood? Blade Runner, Missing, the remake of The Bounty. And Cosmos on TV.

So I will probably compromise my ethical standards and attend said Guys Movie Night. Anyone else in here have these events at your church? Any memorable, um, memories?

RLP kills me. Scroll down past the picture and read Everett Joseph Smith Was A Real Boy, a superb account of a slice of pastoral ministry. A very moving piece…

[Excerpt]

When you are the pastor of a church, you are many things. You are an agent of grace and hope, a repository of spiritual and scriptural wisdom, and a gatekeeper at big events like weddings and funerals. Somehow people weave all of these into a complex image of you. You are all things to all people.

And sometimes you are the Black Rider of Death. People indulge in all sorts of denial while they are waiting for the minister. It’s a blessed procrastination that helps them make it for a short time. And then you appear, framed in the hospital doorway, bible in hand… Let the grieving begin.

Thanks Doug. Appreciated. I still suck.

I also think that the Israelites, like the disciples, likely got things wrong from time to time, but God’s purposes and truth still come through. I don’t feel we have to uphold the inspiration of anything apart from how it relates to Christ. I think that idea of “perfect revelation” is a modernistic curse, and not necessary to present the Gospel message. Ted has said, in effect, we must accept the Bible as inerrant before we accept Jesus. I think that is remarkable, and ought to be thought about carefully. I don’t believe it, and I can’t believe it. I only believe the Bible because of Jesus. He’s the ONLY reason I buy any of it.

OK. I’m on my way to hell. Cya.

Michael: I should have been more clear. I was in reality responding to this quote from your post…

“I’m unclear to what extent God was actually involved in some of the violence and cruelty ordered up in the Old Testament.”

My response – If the OT says God said to order it up, He ordered it up. I still have that much inerrantism left in my blood…

I am the worst writer in the world. I’m going to quit. I swear. This is the end.

Douglas: I said pretty clearly that the OT revealed God’s process of teaching his character, attributes, covenant, etc to the chosen people. And that the whole business ends up yearning for more. John 1:18. Hebrews 1:1-4. Hebrews 7-10. All of the Gospel of John. I mean…

ESV Hebrews 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.

Colossians 2:16-17 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

I’m not insulting the OT. I’m trying to take a deeply Christian view of it.

OK…enough. I’m gone for three days. Have a nice time. Someone change the mast quote.

Michael your latest essay “When Loving You Is Killing Me: Thoughts On Pastoring The Small Church” deals with some issues that I have been discussing with my friends. As you know I just left a Church that is making the transition from small country church to a bigger more active church. I saw God doing awesome things, while I was there, and it was very hard to leave. It is possible for these churches to change. I love the local church with all of her wonderful warts.
I have friends searching for churches to pastor and they are scared they will end up in a family chapel. We discussed these churches in seminary and I think they are horrible for new/young pastors to work with. The people in these churches burn so many out of the ministry. The pastors are not perfect either. They make their fare share of mistakes but it is so refreshing to see a church that will be patient with a new pastor.
I have one friend now who is a great preacher. He already has an mdiv but is currently serving as an associate pastor and is going to pursue his Dmin. His thinking is after serving as an associate pastor and getting the Dr. in front of his name he will be able to get a church that is beyond the family chapel status. I believe he should be pastoring now and think it is a shame he is not in a pulpit every Sunday but I understand the only churches willing to hire him now are ones he probably does not want to be in. Is this a horrible way to think or a practical road to follow? It seems real unspiritual but I really cannot blame him for doing it.

Yet another Tom Wright must read. I blogged about it at my place. Quite good and something, as I wrote, I wish he would come and say to United Methodists at our next General Conference.

Some so-called inerrantists out there are listening to some so-called postmodernists, and are getting scared. The pomos sometimes sound frighteningly like liberals. We all know what happens when you become theologically liberal. The inerrantists are circling the wagons, pronouncing anathemas. They refuse to depart from the faith once delivered to the saints. Or from the teaching of their fathers.

Pretty good sense, actually. You go, inerrantists. The liberals are definitely capitalizing on pomo language. You’re right to be suspicious.

However, if any of you are interested in discernment, and would like to have a little better sense of whether pomo Christianity is actually apostasy or not, here are a few hints.

Michael said, “God reveals himself IMPERFECTLY in the Old Testament record, and passages like Numbers 5 are part of the OT ‘yearning’ for God to come down and reveal himself in a way that is accessible to all who would believe.”

I’m not sure I buy the line of reasoning in this post here. Was the revelation of God in the OT not in full? Certainly, else there would be no place for Christ. But the OT Law was a revelation of God to His people that was accessible to all. That was the point of Sinai and the recording of the Law in the Pentateuch – if they couldn’t all read it, at least it was to be read aloud and taught by the Levites.

I think the best context to understand this sort of passage is to remember that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of LAW. Yes, my Presby/Reformed friends, there is grace in it, but on the whole it is a long list of commands – with harsh injunctions to back them up. The revelation of God in the Mosaic Covenant is one of holiness and justice. The “waters of bitterness” seem cruel, but heck, we ALL deserve instant death and condemnation to hell from conception onwards! Anything less than that is grace!

I don’t expect unbelievers to buy that. I’ve given up on explaining all of God’s ways to believers (or even understanding them myself). You can’t explain or justify a holy God to an unholy person (and everybody, believers or no, falls into that category). The only theodicy that has any power or meaning is the Cross. You don’t like the waters of bitterness? Don’t explain it away, run to the cross. You don’t like God ordering Canaanites to the slaughter? Run to the Cross, before your turn comes up. You don’t like God not explaining Himself to Job? Go to the Cross, where He didn’t even explain Himself to His own Son. Eventually, if you try to “figure it all out”, you either dilute the impact of God’s word or get so haughty that you miss the sheer mystery, incomprehensibility, and scandal of it all. If God didn’t want us to be scandalized, He wouldn’t have died on a Cross, eh?

(This ought to put me back in Josh’s good graces… ;-} )

Dale, thanks for the list. A quick response.

1) The age of many of the works cited has to be taken into consideration on two levels.

A. A bias towards postmil and preterism. (Both fine and legit interpretations, btw)

B. A lack of contemporary knowledge of the situation in Asia Minor in the first century. This is significant. What has been learned in the past 50 years is an important part of the concensus.

2) The inclusion of F.F. Bruce and Bultmann makes me suspicious. That these scholars entertained the early date seems reasonable, but it is hard for me to believe both rejected the later date. I’d like more on those two.

3) Jay Adams? :)

4) For readers, what we are talking about here are two things:

A) Does the overall design and content of the book of Revelation betray any clues to what had or had not happened in Jerusalem in the Roman War?

B) Does “coded” material in the book that apparently refers to Nero indicate a Neronian persecuation, rather than a later persecution under Domitian?

The current concensus is:

A) The book does not give a clear indication of the status events in Jerusalem, but the concensus is that Israel has been destroyed and temple worship is over.

B) The current view is that there was a) a general not specific or intense- Domitian persecution in Asia Minor revolving around the Imperial Cult, and this is the background of the churches in Rev 2-3. It fits what we know of those cities later in the first century. b) Domitian was seen as Nero “resurrected” and the Neronian code is being applied to Nero. This is the best way to understand a number of statements about “the beast.”

5) I might mention that the Early Church citations of Revelation don’t support an early date at all, but a later one.

Dale knows all this, and it is just shop talk, but it is interesting to those who don’t just read Left Behind for their views on the Bible’s most controversial book. Thanks Dale.

John at HWS reposes the Numbers 5 question, and gets a good answer in the second comment.

I’d say something like this:

The Bible is a very odd accumulation of writings. The value of much of it is clear, such as the Gospels or the epistles. To the ordinary reader, the value of some of the Old Testament, however, is not as clear, and anyone who reads parts of the early history of Israel, and some of the case laws and rituals, will reasonably ask if they are supposed to believe that God- the God Jesus tells us about- is the same God who is ordering people to be hacked up and women to be given bitter water tests for adultery? To not ask that question is to be a poor reader and not serious about the question “What is God like?”

If you have a “flat Bible” view that says all of scripture is inspired in the same way with equal significance, then you have a problem in passages like this that I can’t solve. I don’t believe in such a view of inspiration. I believe that, on one level, the Bible is a totally human record of things people believed and did. I’m unclear to what extent God was actually involved in some of the violence and cruelty ordered up in the Old Testament. But my approach basically works out this way:

God chooses a man (Abram), and turns his family into a nation. God covenants into a relationship with this nation. The purpose of that covenant nation is to know, worship, and demonstrate particular truths/realities about God. This would include his character, attributes, holiness and mercy. Clearly, this is a process with a lot of risk, and a lot of imperfection. The “chosen people” demonstrated an understandable tendency to resist the entire project at times, and to go fanatical in pursuing it at others. In all of this, God is teaching and shaping them through leaders, events, experiences and laws. The Old Testament is the record of that process, and even with its considerable record of imperfection and many outrageous passages, one can still see and hear God and what he is doing. When we arrive at Jesus, we see the point of it all.

In the law, in particular, God often ordains things that seem extremely strange. Given that this was a primitive and prescientific culture, rituals like Numbers 5 probably seemed fairly ordinary at the time. But the purpose at the heart of the matter is clear: God is a God who requires fidelity to his covenant, and who will try the heart to judge by truth. This lesson is repeated in many ways, and forms the backdrop of a great deal of covenant imagery and prophetic communication. It is an essential lesson, and God chose to teach it in ways that primitive people would understand. A lecture series apparently wasn’t considered.

It is fascinating that later in the Bible, Jesus is confronted with an adultrous woman in John 8, and with the claims of the crowd to have an absolute right of judgment. The well known result was, basically, an appeal to God’s knowledge of every person, and a demonstration of his righteous mercy.

In general, what we begin to see in a stumbling, imperfect, and often culturally primitive way becomes clear in Jesus. He sees our sin. He takes our sin. He is killed for our sin. He gives us his righteousness as a gift. The “bitter water” of the cross is the premise of the “Good News” of the Gospel. The humiliation of a possibly innocent woman prefigures the humiliation of an innocent savior. Like so many of the outrageous OT passages, when we get to the cross, things become clear. Painfully so.

We don’t need to apologize for such passages or to attempt to make them what they are not. They are the rough, beginning steps of the record of God making his Holiness and mercy known to the world through his people, but this is a very primative and tentative step in that revelation. When we come to Jesus, and take him back with us to Numbers 5, we can be grateful that the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Truly, this chapter is a “dark shadow” of the better things to come.

It’s about 8pm dark outside and the doppler radar shows a bunch of ‘red’ moving through. One week and a day ago we were pounded bad enough that in places there are ‘furrows’ ploughed through woods, 18+” trees totally uprooted.

It’s enough to make you look forward to a Minnesota winter.

Is Bibliolotry (sp?) what happens when you separate your doctrine of Scripture from your doctrine of Jesus? Just curious.

I was reading Capon’s Parable Trilogy over breakfast, incredible. The book is awesome too.

wow…what’s goin’ on in here? disgruntled moderator? clever hacking troll?

speaking of which…Flame Warriors is a pretty funny site (HT to Team Redd and Upside Down Asylum).

It’s been utterly impossible for me to keep up with the conversation in here the past two days. I’m finishing up my final research paper today…then a nice long break from school, until I decide to pursue some other degree that I won’t actually use in a professional job.

Annie Judson, it should be working now.

-Kurt

Note: Don’t try to post before your eyes open up enough to read.

boarsheadtavern.com/pda isn’t updating for me.

Michael writes:

I’ve probably got 20 commentaries on Rev on the shelves. None of them take the early date. None are by dispys. Most are by folks considered “critical.” I took two classes at SBTS on Rev. Both argued extensively for the late date. Neither were taught by dispys. I think the late date is held by 80% of NT scholars at least. For a good recent work, see Ben Witherington III. I don’t read dispys. I only see Calvinists/a/preterists taking the early date. (Wright might take it!

This is an extract from Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell.

The names are ordered alphabetically vice chronologically.

What I found striking was the dates of the scholars.

pax,
Dale

Dale,

I’ve probably got 20 commentaries on Rev on the shelves. None of them take the early date. None are by dispys. Most are by folks considered “critical.” I took two classes at SBTS on Rev. Both argued extensively for the late date. Neither were taught by dispys. I think the late date is held by 80% of NT scholars at least. For a good recent work, see Ben Witherington III. I don’t read dispys. I only see Calvinists/Postmills/preterists taking the early date. (Wright might take it!)

Hey Monk, I think I found a BHT Christmas gift for Noel…

HT to PDuggan

Ted writes: “With the closing of special revelation in A.D. 70….”
Michael asks:

Where do you come up with that?

Are you aware that at all major scholars date John’s writings in the 90’s? And Revelation as well?

Ted’s right: Kenneth Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell is an excellent, scholarly work on the dating of the book of Revelation. It was Gentry’s PhD thesis.

And don’t forget—one’s eschatological position has a lot to do with the dating of Revelation. Yes, it’s the cart before the horse. But I think a good case can be made that with the rise in Dispensationalism came a shift from an early dating to a late dating.

pax,
Dale

I have a question about the doctrine of inerrancy. Please note: I’m asking this as someone who has embraced, defended, and taught the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. So this is an “insider’s” question/observation.

It appears to me that we Americans have taken our scientific precisionism and tried to force the Scriptures to meet that requirement. The Chicago Statement reads like it was written by a bunch of 20th century scientists.

Wouldn’t a more biblical position be to see what level of precision the Bible requires and make that the standard?

pax,
Dale