Featured Biblical Inerrancy and/or infallibility

I have come to the position that "inspiration" has to do with the original manuscripts which were infallibly accurate. However, the long term purpose of inspiration was to produce a self-definable contextual pattern. If you take an afgan, you can clearly see a pattern. Although that pattern may in time wear and minor holes occur, by studying the overall pattern one can see what should be in the holes.

Likewise, the minor errors of copyist, and translations are not allowed to be so great that the overall contextual pattern is destroyed. God made sure that plenty of copies have been preserved, unlike many similar older writings.

Hence, one must simply study to shew themselves approved, whether it is a Hebrew or Greek text or one of many translations in various langauges. The self-defining pattern is preserved. The purer the copies or translation the easier the work of interpetation. However, the bottom line is that we only need to study to shew ourselves a workman not to be ashamed before God.

Therefore, if all you have is a KJV or a Tyndale version or the NIV you still have the word of God retained in a contextual defining pattern. It merely means you must compare scripture with its immediate and overall context - spiritual things with spiritual things and with the abiding author residing in you, he can help you see the contextual defined meaning.

 

I picked up quite a few of those "Points" books on Kindle a while back for $2 of $3 each.

Vanhoozer doesn't exactly follow the traditional view of inerrancy but uses a view that flows from the modern form of historical interpretation.

I'm attracted to Peter Enns who probably considers the term inerrancy as an unnecessary burden.

Rob

 

Are you talking about the guy who was suspended from Westminister because of his view on scripture?

 

isn't the correct viewpoint what has been called the verbal plenary one, the originals were fully inerrant, and our texts that were now in extant gave to us an infalliblase word?

To deny the full inspiration of the scriptures means to affirm an incomplete revelation from god to us in His word...

 

You might wish to read the short pamphlet written by JI packer on the Inspiration/revelation of the Bible though!

 

Quite the academic subject wouldn't you say? I do not have this book but did have this book for a future read.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0825420733/?tag=baptis04-20

Is it covering the same thing your book does?

 

I haven't read Boyce's book either however I'd gander to say every one of the authors would uphold a strong view on biblical authority.

Inerrancy / infallibility deals with ways we approach scripture, understand scripture, and interpret scripture.

Yet thinking about it further, the different approaches may reign in traditional biblical authority in some areas by considering certain aspects to be historical artifacts.

In a odd way like how various people think they don't need to read the OT because it doesn't really apply to NT believers.

Rob

 

I believe Enns is also associated with Bio Logos . He affirms theistic evolution and what has been labeled as "the Genesis myth"; that the creation narrative in Genesis is not literal.

 

In other words a liberal.

 

Then he really denies that the Bible is inspired revelation from God unto us..

 

Since no one has, as of yet, answered the question in the OP, I will offer this:

Vanhoozer is one of the best theologians/philosophers in evangelicalism today. If you haven't read his three part books on theological prolegomena you should. His work in the text referenced in the OP is marvelous and his essay is clearly the best.

You can't go wrong with Vanhoozer on these issues. :thumbs:

 

A wonderfully ignorant comment about what Enns believes from a perspective that is entirely unaware of his works. Listen, I don't care for Enns' conclusions nor think his process in getting there is authentic, that said you simply cannot make these kinds of statements when, in fact, Enns has stated often that he believes the Scriptures to be inspired. Please read someone before castigating them.

 

Not much. I believe he claims to be a champion of biblical inerrancy but manages to weasel his way out of making the Bible authoritative. He rejects any biblical basis of creation by claiming the Bible is not meant to be anything but a "religious book" while unbelievably clinging (so he says) to it's authority in that realm alone.

How can God be authoritative in "religion" and not authoritative in everything He said that supposedly is not "religious" in nature? Vanhoozer, Enns and others err gravely in believing that God spoke to us "only about religion." The reality is, God establishes His Authority as Creator through His revelation of that creation in order to establish His Authority over the created.

 

Enns book "Inspiration and Incarnation; Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament" is a must read if you're interested in this subject.

As to inerrancy, genrally speaking....nope.

 

I believe that Norman Geisler may be a champion in this subject and I know has some very exhaustive books on this topic. He had been invited by Mac to next years Shepherds Conference to speak on this topic only.