Do you take the minimalist position like Meph ("Insofar as Jesus' person and work is based in the his understanding of the Hebrew scriptures and testified to in the New Testament, those scriptures are useful and authoritative for Jesus' disciples." and require proof for the rest, or do we give the benefit of the doubt to "every jot and tittle" (also Christ's words) and question as we find necessary for logical reasons. I take it that Meph is claiming Jesus did NOT take the whole of Hebrew scriptures as true history. Scott Jorgenson, on the other hand, says Christ may very well HAVE taken the whole OT historically, but that it doesn't matter what we believe about the historicity of the OT as long as we get the right moral teaching from the text. Which, if either, of these positions do you agree with.

Post Edited By Moderator (Forum Administrator) : 3/17/2005 1:58:56 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited By Moderator (Forum Administrator) : 3/17/2005 2:04:23 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Selah) : 3/16/2005 4:53:10 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Selah) : 3/16/2005 3:57:31 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 3/16/2005 6:28:43 AM (GMT-6)

Just a word of explanation. I haven't read all this thread in detail. Hope to get around to that. I'm just swamped. But I wanted to throw in what I could.

Jeff: Do you take the minimalist position like Meph ("Insofar as Jesus' person and work is based in the his understanding of the Hebrew scriptures and testified to in the New Testament, those scriptures are useful and authoritative for Jesus' disciples") and require proof for the rest, or do we give the benefit of the doubt to "every jot and tittle" (also Christ's words) and question as we find necessary for logical reasons.  I take it that Meph is claiming Jesus did NOT take the whole of Hebrew scriptures as true history.

Tom: I’m just looking at Mephi’s “Insofar as Jesus' person and work is based in the his understanding of the Hebrew scriptures and testified to in the New Testament, those scriptures are useful and authoritative for Jesus' disciples" and wondering how those same scriptures are “useful” and “authoritative” to US on the basis of Jesus’ person and work (which seems to be Mephi’s basis for trusting scripture) if it’s also true that Jesus was mistaken in his understanding of those scriptures.

So I’m trying to figure out how to answer your question: Do I take a minimalist approach or do I give scripture the benefit of the doubt and question only as I find it necessary to do so? I’m just wondering whether or not there is really any difference between the minimalist position you describe and the alternative your propose which is prepared to go as minimal as one finds necessary. I guess I don’t see a difference between the two approaches you describe. I mean, I’m sure Mephi gives the Bible, for example, the “benefit of the doubt.” Assuming the truth of what we read or hear is sort of our default mode. We only doubt or dismiss when we have reason to do so. But Mephi believes he has reason to believe the Bible is in error theologically as well as in other incidental historical and scientific ways. For example, Paul communicates theological error with respect to his teaching/doctrine regarding “death” in Rm 5 and 1Cor 15. Paul’s just flat out wrong to believe what he does about death. But saying the alternative to this is one which “gives the Bible the benefit of the doubt and questions only when necessary” doesn’t seem to me to really be an alternative at all. It seems to be Mephi’s approach. He gave the Bible the benefit of the doubt until he found reason to doubt.

I’m saying my view is that with respect at least to scripture’s theological, doctrinal, and moral declarations, there can be no reason to doubt its truth. Doubt whatever reasons you think you have for believing scripture to be in error in these respects. So the question of giving the Bible “the benefit of the doubt” in these regards is too weak a statement for me. I want to do more than give it the benefit of the doubt. I want to more intentionally affirm its truth and insist that whatever appears or in fact is incompatible with scripture be rejected (or held in suspense on the assumption that the truth of the matter will at some point show compatibility; that's the sort of "benefit of the doubt" I'm willing to give to scripture's theology).

Jeff: Scott Jorgenson, on the other hand, says Christ may very well HAVE taken the whole OT historically, but that it doesn't matter what we believe about the historicity of the OT as long as we get the right moral teaching from the text. Which, if either, of these positions do you agree with.

Tom: I’m missing the difference between Mephi and Scott on this. Mephi I think would agree that the point is the “moral” teaching of scripture. What confuses me is Mephi’s believing the scripture can be in error in its theological intent. This makes it difficult for me to understand how Mephi believes the Bible is trustworthy as a guide in “teaching/doctrine, etc.” (2Tim. 3.16). If we are prepared to judge the scripture’s theology, doctrine, and teaching, as being wrong, then in what sense can we also say it is a reliable guide on these same matters? Looks to me like Mephi has to break “teaching/doctrine” of 2Tim. 3 down even further to mean “teachings I agree with,” which seems to leave one with an emasculated view of scripture’s authority. We just find authoritative over us all those teachings and doctrines of scripture we agree with. Those we don’t agree with we don’t view as authoritative.

If the scripture can be theologically in error in what it intends to teach, then why believe 2Tim. 3.16 to be authoritative? Just on the basis of Jesus’ person and work? But how does Jesus’ person and work serve as the basis of my submitting to the truth of scripture’s theology in one passage but not serve as the basis of my submitting to the truth of its theology in another passage? I don’t know how to do that.

Jeff: Frankly, I'm not seeing it. To me, your [Mephi’s] (and Scott's) approach requires no wrestling at all precisely because you seem to have the ability to generate conclusions effortlessly, with none of the constraints imposed by inductive axioms. Paul's view seem silly? Then just say he was wrong! Presto!

Tom: Exactly.

Jeff: In my opinion, the view that we should give benefit of the doubt to scripture understood in the most common-sensical manner is the view that requires wrestling.

Tom: This is where you lose me, Jeff. If you’re only giving scripture the benefit of the doubt while being prepared to admit that the Bible can (for SOME reasons, under strict and objective scrutiny) be found in error, then I can see the basis for a struggle. There’s a struggle is something is at stake. That’s my point. But if you’re going to commit, by faith, on the basis of Christ’s example and a particular understanding of the purpose and truth of revelation, that scripture’s theological truth IS truth, that it simply cannot be theologically in error, THEN there’s no struggle because there’s nothing at stake. One’s belief in this respect is not on the table. One simply doesn’t countenance evidence to the contrary. Well, you can countenance it for academic purposes, but there’s no struggle to determine for one’s self THAT the theology of the Bible is true.

This is where I am. I cannot say “What Paul intended to teach theologically in the letters we possess of his is ‘theologically’ inaccurate.” I can believe Paul made theological mistakes as an uninspired person outside of scripture. I can’t believe he made such mistakes as an inspired author, for it’s precisely THIS role that is the vehicle for revelation. In other words, Paul’s theological intent in scripture, in my view, constitutes the very content of revelation. That’s where the revealing gets done. And I don’t believe God reveals theological error. So whatever theological errors Paul may have held to (and I’m sure he held to some), I don’t believe they show up in scripture.

Jeff: I'm wanting to find out what presuppositions I share with Tom for the same reason. It saves time in debate to avoid arguments that are irrelevant to one’s opponent.

Tom: I can’t agree with Mephi, for example, that Paul’s theological teaching on “death” in Rom. 5 and 1Cor 15 is in error. I just can’t say that. It’s a statement of faith on my part, of course. But it’s one that I’m unable to abandon and still have confidence in what the Bible reveals ‘theologically’. If all I can do is say “Hey, I believe there’s a satisfactory answer out there that reconciles an evolutionary understanding of creation with Paul’s theological understanding of death” then so be it. In my view, that’s preferable to judging such theology to be in error.

Do I believe in inerrancy? That all depends upon which definition. I certainly believe that the Bible is inerrant with respect to what it intends to reveal about those areas of faith and practice mentioned in 2Tim. 3.16. That’s the closest Paul ever comes to expressing his view of scripture. It’s good enough for me for the moment. Mephi seems to agree, but his judgment that scripture’s “teaching” (theology) on “death” is in error leaves me scratching my head.

But I don’t think the Bible is absolutely error-free in every sense of the word. That’s demonstrably not the case.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 3/16/2005 12:39:03 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited By Moderator (Forum Administrator) : 3/17/2005 2:00:25 PM (GMT-6)

Thanks for the response, Tom. 

Tom: I’m saying my view is that with respect at least to scripture’s theological, doctrinal, and moral declarations, there can be no reason to doubt its truth. Doubt whatever reasons you think you have for believing scripture to be in error in these respects. So the question of giving the Bible “the benefit of the doubt” in these regards is too weak a statement for me. I want to do more than give it the benefit of the doubt. I want to more intentionally affirm its truth and insist that whatever appears or in fact is incompatible with scripture be rejected (or held in suspense on the assumption that the truth of the matter will at some point show compatibility; that's the sort of "benefit of the doubt" I'm willing to give to scripture's theology).

Jeff:  That seems like an oversimplification to me.  If theodicy is part of theological truth, how we view science can't help but affect theology.  Indeed, you refused to take up the issue of natural evil precisely because of your lack of persuasion about theistic evolution and other matters.  Because of different scientific views, Doc's theodicy is different than mine and ours is different than John's and so on.  And each has different implications about God's benevolence, providence, etc - as well as Satan's role.  That's why I'm really blown away when people start trying to create whole theological doctrines from "God is Love."  That phrase has different meanings depending on one's theodicy.  It is not for nothing that Scott says theodicy makes his head hurt!!

Tom: This is where you lose me, Jeff. If you’re only giving scripture the benefit of the doubt while being prepared to admit that the Bible can (for SOME reasons, under strict and objective scrutiny) be found in error, then I can see the basis for a struggle. There’s a struggle is something is at stake. That’s my point. But if you’re going to commit, by faith, on the basis of Christ’s example and a particular understanding of the purpose and truth of revelation, that scripture’s theological truth IS truth, that it simply cannot be theologically in error, THEN there’s no struggle because there’s nothing at stake. One’s belief in this respect is not on the table. One simply doesn’t countenance evidence to the contrary. Well, you can countenance it for academic purposes, but there’s no struggle to determine for one’s self THAT the theology of the Bible is true.

Jeff:  It seems to me that God expects us to be rational.  Therefore, our faith must ultimately be rationally consistent with the real world and it's real history.  Hence, the struggle of reconciling the two, at least for apologetic purposes.  If everytime there is a conflict between the most reasonable historical claims of scripture and the claims of scientists/historians we just say that scripture is erroneous, then there's no conflict - no struggle.  That sounds as easy as pie to me.

Jeff:  That seems like an oversimplification to me. If theodicy is part of theological truth…

Tom: I’m sure there’s a true fact of the matter about theodicy, but it’s not like everybody aggress on just what it is. I don’t think this undermines my own respect for the truth of scripture. Sometimes there are equally plausible interpretations of the Bible. I’m not saying we can always easily determine what scripture’s meaning is. All I’m saying is that scripture’s meaning (whatever it is) is infallible at least where that meaning involves the sort of teaching/doctrine, basis for rebuke and correction, and training in righteousness that Paul seems to law out as scriptures basic purpose.

Jeff: …how we view science can't help but affect theology. Indeed, you refused to take up the issue of natural evil precisely because of your lack of persuasion about theistic evolution and other matters.

Tom: Really? I thought I didn’t jump in because of time restraints and other issues that came to the front. I’d still LOVE to talk about natural evil dude! No problem with me. Again, I don’t see your point. scripture hardly makes any ONE particular view of natural evil unambiguously clear. This doesn’t mean there’s not a truth of the matter about natural evil and that this truth is infallible. That’s my point.

Jeff: Because of different scientific views, Doc's theodicy is different than mine and ours is different than John's and so on. And each has different implications about God's benevolence, providence, etc - as well as Satan's role.

Tom: Yeah, sure. But science isn’t always unambiguous, especially with regard to theories that might impact our understanding of the Bible. Gravitation is pretty clear and doesn’t seem to pose a problem. Evolution on the other hand introduces some interesting issues into the mix and may cause problems, but evolution is hardly as established a scientific view as is gravitation or photosynthesis. Some scientists don’t buy it. So, sure, we all have scientific views that we have to square with the Bible. I’m not denying that. I’m just saying that MY view of scripture affirms the authority of (at the very LEAST) ITS theological truth claims.

Jeff:  It seems to me that God expects us to be rational.

Tom: For SURE.

Jeff: Therefore, our faith must ultimately be rationally consistent with the real world and it's real history. Hence, the struggle of reconciling the two, at least for apologetic purposes. If everytime there is a conflict between the most reasonable historical claims of scripture and the claims of scientists/historians we just say that scripture is erroneous, then there's no conflict - no struggle. That sounds as easy as pie to me.

Tom: I haven’t even touched on historical and scientific claims. Try not to suppose what I'd do with such issues. My whole post focused on the Bible’s theological claims. Can we agree that the Bible’s theological claims are true? This doesn’t mean we can always establish what the Bible in fact claims ‘theologically.’ But can we agree that whatever the Bible in fact asserts theologically it’s correct on? By focusing on theological claims, Jeff, I’m trying to find out if there is ANY category of truth-claim we ought to believe scripture is right on 100% of the time. Is there no claim the Bible makes, or no category of truth-claim, we are simply not prepared to admit it can be in error on? 

Tom

Let me immitate Mephi...

Hmmm. Extremely intereseting.  

------------------------

I admit to being really weak on all the in’s and out’s to this issue. Maybe Jeff was right in calling my view “oversimplified.” I don’t know.

99.9 % of the so-called inaccuracies folks see in scripture seem to come from the presupposed belief that the supernatural can’t happen. If you assume that then tons of stuff in the Bible has got to go. But apart from that, the number of truly historical inaccuracies dwindles to (last I read I. Howard Marshall) a few, two or three really hard cases. Don’t have his book on hand. But it’s just so miniscule as to hardly qualify for debate.

Of course a less than 100% accuracy is not indicative of “error” depending upon the “purpose.” And this provides me my wiggle room. For example, nobody faults a carpenter for failing to cut to the 16^th of an inch when cutting to within half an inch will do. The carpenter knows how much leeway he’s got and that THAT particular board is to be used for. So it’s purpose that determines the measure of accuracy required. Sometimes you’ve got to cut on the 16^th of an inch and can’t spare any departure. Other times your can cut within half an inch and still produce a length of board that does what you want it to do. What do you want the board to do after you’ve cut it? That’s the question.

I can’t for the life of me see why we can’t take a similar approach to the Bible. Are there “any” inaccuracies at all in the autographs (heh, the “autographs”! That’s another issue!)? Well, there ARE linguistic errors of spelling and grammar. Mephi’s article calls these “profane” errors. Nobody counts ‘em. No possible cut God wanted to make in scripture required perfect spelling of its author. So there’s at least some level of error we all find compatible with God’s revelation in scripture.

The question is what manner of error is compatible with scripture’s fulfilling its God-determined purposes. What about error in “content”? Well, we have first do determine what God’s purposes are for scripture, don’t we? We can’t just say, “No error in content whatsoever is compatible with God’s purposes!” without knowing what that purpose is. That would be like demanding a carpenter always make his cut to within a sixteenth of an inch regardless of his purpose, and that’s silly I think. So we want first to know what God’s purposes for scripture are. I think 2Tim. 3.16 comes as close to providing such a statement as anything we find in the Bible. But it would be really worth exploring the entire Bible in search of the fullest possible composite statement we can come up with on what the Bible says about itself. That’d be cool.

Anyhow, I’m not at all interested in coming up with cute theories of how God inspired and whether there are different levels of inspiration and which levels are found in which parts of the Bible. There’s no point to it. It’s enough to know that God has purposes for the Bible and that the Bible can be trusted with regard to fulfilling THESE purposes infallibly.

Onto the Progressive Protestant Perspective (from the article):

PPP: (a) the purely passive, mechanical theopneustia, extending to the very words, is no longer tenable.

Tom: This is interesting. Very cleverly worded. Hey, at least the author of this article extended his intentions to the choice of the very words he wrote! I’d like to know why, what evidence, this author has for thinking inspiration cannot EVER extend to the very words of scripture. The author doesn’t even follow up by saying what inspiration does in fact extend to if not to the words. Are we safe in assuming it extends to the intended meaning of the text? I guess we’ll have to. And I can live with an inspiration that extends to “meaning.” I mean, if the text says, “The just shall live by faith” and we reword it to “It is those who are put right with God by faith who really live,” we will have destroyed inspiration and revelation with it IF it’s the case that inspiration extends to ONLY the choice of specific words. So, fine, it has to be ultimately about meaning. But you don’t get a specific meaning without specific words, even if there’s more than one way to word that meaning. This is what those who deny verbal inspiration miss and those who dogmatically affirm it overlook. There can be more than one way to word a proposition, but that doesn’t mean words are unimportant to propositions. My view of inspiration is that it extends to the propositions (meanings) of scripture. But if you don’t have words, you don’t have propositions. And even if there are different words available for expressing one and the same proposition, there are still a limited number of specific words available for expressing that proposition.

PPP: (b) Inspiration had degrees: suggestion, direction, elevation, and superintendency. All the sacred writers have not been equally inspired.

Tom: Who cares? But moreover, how could anybody possibly crawl inside the biblical author’s head, or God’s head, or any particular text and render a judgment about just how much influence God was exerting in/on/around the author in producing a particular text? This entirely misses the point I think. The question is what amount of inaccuracy in “cut” is compatible with the fulfillment of God’s purposes for a text? The Bible simply doesn’t tell us. All it tells us is what those purposes for the Bible are and that we can trust the Bible to fulfill these purposes.

If someone can honestly say their trust in the Bible to do its divinely intended “job” isn’t undermined in the slightest by the Bible’s being erroneous in the performance of this “job,” then hey, whatever floats your boat. I have to be honest with myself though and admit that there’s a level of error and inaccuracy that I just can’t admit and still believe the Bible can be trusted with respect to what it says it can be trust on. Do I worry about this? Never. The only time it comes up is on this board.

PPP: (c) Inspiration is personal that is, given directly to the sacred writer to enlighten, stimulate, and purify his faculties. This religious enthusiasm, like every great passion, exalts the powers of the soul; it belongs, therefore, to the spiritual order, and is not merely a help given immediately to the intellect. Biblical inspiration, being a seizure of the entire man by the Divine virtue, does not differ essentially from the gift of the Holy Spirit imparted to all the faithful.

Tom; Now how in the world would the author know that the sort of divine influence involved in inspiring scripture is no different than the sort of divine influence involved in inspiring Christians generally? And what is proven about the Bible if this is true anyhow? Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not disagreeing. I’m in fact inclined to agree that God’s “influence” is God’s influence, regardless of what he’s influencing. The same “essential” thing is going on. It’s God at work and God’s presence is essentially the same presence. So what’s the point? Looks to me like PPP wants to say something about the “text” of the Bible (i.e., lower it) by pointing out that there’s nothing really unique about the divine activity that produced it. If this is what PPP is doing, then it’s bogus and cheap I think. Who cares if divine influence in two different situations is in both situations essentially “divine”? It would have to be if it’s God at work in both situations. But the point is that God is free to bring about a text that is error free where its purposes require such inerrancy if he wants to. That the essentially same God or influence is involved in other situations that are not error-free doesn’t give us the right to conclude on the basis of the essentially same nature of the influence that everything produced by such influence must contain SOME errors. That just doesn’t follow.

I’m not saying I believe in absolute inerrancy. I don’t. But I do believe the Bible is sufficient error-free to fulfill its purposes. It can be trusted absolutely to do what it was designed to do.

PPP: (d) It is, to say the least, an improper use of language to call the sacred text itself inspired. At any rate, this text can, and actually does, err not only in profane matters, but also in those appertaining more or less to religion, since the Prophets and Christ Himself, notwithstanding His Divinity, did not possess absolute infallibility.

Tom: Not even absolute inerrantists believe Jesus was always, on all occasions, inerrant. This entirely misses the point. No inerrantist (and I’m not one) believes Jesus never miscounted his change when shopping in the vegetable market, or failed to remember accurately just how many towns he preached in the previous month, or always won at chess, or any other number of situations. But says nothing (zip, zilcho, nada) about what Jesus is when his actions and words are chosen by inspiration to be included by an author in scripture and constitute the inspired meaning an author seeks to communicate to his audience. When Jesus said “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” or “The pure in heart shall see God,” must we verify the truth of these declarations on independent grounds because Jesus was not absolutely infallible as PPP says? Are we really having this conversation?

PPP: The Bible is a historical document which taken in its entirety contains the authentic narrative of revelation, the tidings of salvation.

Tom: I have no idea what PPP just said. The Bible “in it’s entirety” contains the tidings of salvation? I can think of LOTS of scripture that don’t breathe a word about salvation. Probably the author meant every part of the Bible contributes SOMETHING to a story that culminates in the tidings of salvation. Let’s hope that’s what he meant.

PPP: (e) Revealed truth, and, consequently, the Faith we derive from it are not founded on the Bible, but on Christ himself; it is from Him and through Him that the written text acquires definitely all its worth.

Tom: I agree AND disagree. This is tricky. I want to agree that my faith and trust are in a PERSON, i.e., Jesus. But I want to disagree that this has to mean our faith and trust are in Christ irrespective of the Bible. So I’m uncomfortable with PPP. I don’t know how to trust Christ himself and also say, “Hey, since Jesus wasn’t infallible as a human being, he was theologically incorrect when he said X, Y, and Z where X, Y, and Z are God’s revealed instruction/teaching.”

Tom

Post Edited By Moderator (Forum Administrator) : 3/17/2005 2:01:10 PM (GMT-6)