tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post7021515521396429717..comments2023-05-17T01:09:54.656-07:00Comments on The Evangelical Calvinist In Plain Language: My Thoughts on Inerrancy and My Doctrine of ScriptureBobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-33767247673040079922012-07-20T10:52:08.318-07:002012-07-20T10:52:08.318-07:00Of course, Cody, the response to what you've s...Of course, Cody, the response to what you've said is that scripture is <em>inspired</em> by God who cannot lie. So to me it requires that we flesh out what scripture means by inspire, and how that relates to scripture as God's Word (which scripture itself calls it in Hebrews 4 for example). I just don't like the conversation itself that much anymore. Some folk who follow the kind of theory of revelation that I advocate (like a Thomas Torrance, Karl Barth and John Webster approach) do press that scripture has errors etc. I am not really even interested in being antagonistic like that! I simply want to press scripture's ontology relative to God's triune speech act in Christ and the Holy Spirit. So maybe Wesley was in line with Barth, Torrance, and Webster ;-).Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-31418322810225289722012-07-19T11:58:06.415-07:002012-07-19T11:58:06.415-07:00Bobby, I've come to the conclusion that it is ...Bobby, I've come to the conclusion that it is not helpful to assign terminology and ideas to the Bible it does not even claim for itself. No where does the Bible make a claim to be inerrant (more a reflection of modernist ideals than pre-modern realities) or free from mistakes. It does claim to be "true," which throughout the majority of history is something different than "free from error" or even "factual." Your reply in this post is both thoughtful and helpful (and also in line with Wesley ;).Cody Staufferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14039036283380860720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-68244066625384495942012-04-19T14:41:13.477-07:002012-04-19T14:41:13.477-07:00Duane,
Thank you. I think people either think one...Duane,<br /><br />Thank you. I think people either think one has to affirm inerrancy or not; and yet as Mark noted, this is a false dichotomy, there is an totally other Christian way (vs. Logical Positivist) to frame this issue. In the end it seems to me that the classic dichotomy here springs from sub-Christian suppostions and not vice versa.Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-61272559018571610102012-04-19T14:39:10.788-07:002012-04-19T14:39:10.788-07:00Mark,
Thank you, brother. Yes, there are certain ...Mark,<br /><br />Thank you, brother. Yes, there are certain expectations that people have in the "way" they think one must approach this issue (either totally Fundy or totally "Liberal" etc.). There is another way, one that sidesteps this whole issue; which Evangelical Calvinism is all about as well ;-).Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-81741188887942769032012-04-18T22:47:51.870-07:002012-04-18T22:47:51.870-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.DUANE WATTShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11423814694822039377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-32312752083616486752012-04-18T14:32:12.240-07:002012-04-18T14:32:12.240-07:00Hi Bobby!
I too found your response helpful :). ...Hi Bobby! <br />I too found your response helpful :). It's open ended which is fine. I'm comfortable with your response. I'm ok with agnosticism on the question as opposed to definitive "inerrancy". I stll have questions, but they may not be answerable until....DUANE WATTShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11423814694822039377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-72414106732634012222012-04-17T20:46:10.183-07:002012-04-17T20:46:10.183-07:00For what it's worth, I think you've done r...For what it's worth, I think you've done really well here in such a limited response. One danger I've noticed in answering the question "Inerrancy: Yes or no?" is that even though the options you are presented with are limited to two, the implications people will draw out of either are vast, and often unfair to your actual position. But people insist on a straight yes or no answer!<br /><br />Hopefully you've satisfied those who demand an answer in binary enough that they actually take in your fuller point about scripture being best understood within, as you say, the "proper order of things."Mark Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00891145791552691425noreply@blogger.com