Biblical Inerrancy and/or infallibility

[quantumfaith]

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:

Thank You for your response. I will read some more of his work. As an aside, I also appreciated the contribution of Michael Bird. Do you have any knowledge or thoughts on him? I think he is Australian.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Does he agree with ther Bible regarding a literal view on genesis?

that the originals had NO mistakes/errors recorded down at all?

or does he have a partial view of inspiration, in that in all spiritual things can be trusted, but as a textbook of history and events, not so much?

 

[Yeshua1]

I have absolutely ZERO problem identifying with him regarding Bio Logos or theistic evolution.

Too bad that he and you so not identify with the vews of jesus and the Apostles in those areas!

 

[quantumfaith]

Too bad that he and you so not identify with the vews of jesus and the Apostles in those areas!

Whatever you say Yeshua.

 

[Yeshua1]

Whatever you say Yeshua.

Do you see that the iptures are inspired and infallible in all things recorded down, or just in the areas of theology and doctrines?

 

[Yeshua1]

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:

Doesn't he seem to hold that the scriptures are true when speaking to issues of faith/doctrines, but not when addressing outside those areas?

And that he thinks the basic problem is that we do n ot rightly understand what the authors real intent was many times, and to what actual meanings they intended in their words beyond just literal one?

So genesis to him was never meant to be taken at face value as a textbook answer to how God created, so never intended to be seen in a liyerally way by Moses, according to him?

Seems that he just wants to accomodate science into scriptures, rehardless if wrong or not!

 

[preachinjesus]

Thank You for your response. I will read some more of his work. As an aside, I also appreciated the contribution of Michael Bird. Do you have any knowledge or thoughts on him? I think he is Australian.

Michael Bird is great. I've read him pretty well now and he's thorough in his process. I still prefer Vanhoozer since, having read him extensively, I know he isn't either a heretic nor does he deny inspiration.

His book The Drama of Doctrine was really helpful for my journey.

 

[preachinjesus]

Does he agree with ther Bible regarding a literal view on genesis?

that the originals had NO mistakes/errors recorded down at all?

or does he have a partial view of inspiration, in that in all spiritual things can be trusted, but as a textbook of history and events, not so much?

These aren't tests for inerrancy. These are tests for a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.

If you don't know the answer to these questions, I'd advise you to either a) email the man or b) read his collected works.

 

[preachinjesus]

Doesn't he seem to hold that the scriptures are true when speaking to issues of faith/doctrines, but not when addressing outside those areas?

And that he thinks the basic problem is that we do n ot rightly understand what the authors real intent was many times, and to what actual meanings they intended in their words beyond just literal one?

So genesis to him was never meant to be taken at face value as a textbook answer to how God created, so never intended to be seen in a liyerally way by Moses, according to him?

Seems that he just wants to accomodate science into scriptures, rehardless if wrong or not!

You've clearly never read Dr Vanhoozer. Your ability to make ranging assumptions based on zero knowledge is astounding.

 

[InTheLight]

You've clearly never read Dr Vanhoozer. Your ability to make ranging assumptions based on zero knowledge is astounding.

Actually, replace Dr. Vanhoozer's name with ********* and you could describe over half the posters on BB.

Would make a nice sig....

 

[Yeshua1]

You've clearly never read Dr Vanhoozer. Your ability to make ranging assumptions based on zero knowledge is astounding.

Does he hold to the originals being inerrant or not?

Does he hold that the Bible we have is infallible in all areas, pn areas of theology, as well as history and science?

Dies he hold that genesis was an actual historical account from God, to be read/understand in a literal fashion, or to "read between the lines", and figure out what the type of wording really was meant to mean?

Isn't the "Fundamentalist" view of scriptures still best one?

 

[Yeshua1]

Michael Bird is great. I've read him pretty well now and he's thorough in his process. I still prefer Vanhoozer since, having read him extensively, I know he isn't either a heretic nor does he deny inspiration.

His book The Drama of Doctrine was really helpful for my journey.

Does he uphold full inspiration, or only a partial view though?

 

[quantumfaith]

These aren't tests for inerrancy. These are tests for a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.

If you don't know the answer to these questions, I'd advise you to either a) email the man or b) read his collected works.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

PJ, you KNOW it is so much easier to consider the sacred cow of ones own "talking points" rather than consider someone else by actually reading.

 

[Rippon]

Do you see that the iptures are inspired and infallible in all things recorded down, or just in the areas of theology and doctrines?

Man, can't you invest in a little more time before posting things? Why are you so careless?

 

[preachinjesus]

Does he hold to the originals being inerrant or not?

Does he hold that the Bible we have is infallible in all areas, pn areas of theology, as well as history and science?

Dies he hold that genesis was an actual historical account from God, to be read/understand in a literal fashion, or to "read between the lines", and figure out what the type of wording really was meant to mean?

Isn't the "Fundamentalist" view of scriptures still best one?

Does he uphold full inspiration, or only a partial view though?

Go read his works, if you have a county library card you can order them through your Interlibrary Loan and you will find your answers. Or email the man and ask him.

I'm not doing your work for you.

 

[Rippon]

Go read his works, if you have a county library card you can order them through your Interlibrary Loan and you will find your answers.

Interlibrary loans are wonderful. I miss them terribly.

I'm not doing your work for you.

But even if you do the work for him he would not concede anything. He would still ask the same questions over and over again. He doesn't acknowledge anything but proceeds on with his same old stuff. He's not in the habit of documenting anything.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Interlibrary loans are wonderful. I miss them terribly.

But even if you do the work for him he would not concede anything. He would still ask the same questions over and over again. He doesn't acknowledge anything but proceeds on with his same old stuff. He's not in the habit of documenting anything.

OK....the mans weaknesses are clearly evident. So lets not pile on him. Rather lets be gracious and try to help the guy understand. See he may not be able to see what we see...and like the game of baseball, you cant hit what you cant see. See ...:smilewinkgrin:

 

[preachinjesus]

OK....the mans weaknesses are clearly evident. So lets not pile on him. Rather lets be gracious and try to help the guy understand. See he may not be able to see what we see...and like the game of baseball, you cant hit what you cant see. See ...:smilewinkgrin:

I have my weakness like we all do. Certainly this is no place for "piling it on someone" relentlessly. However, the brother in question openly repudiates established scholars, makes sweeping (false) generalizations of their work, and condemns with libels and labels that have no means of being affixed to these find scholars and intellects that are actually doing good work for the Kingdom.

If someone is without knowledge on a topic, let them ask. Plenty of folks around here, myself included, have provided helpful links, citations, and places to start discussing. What is maddening about this business (with more than just a few here) is how categorically false so much of their postings are and yet they continue in their ignorance.

Applying tests that have no basis in reputable discussions as to whether a man, a man who has devoted the better part of all his life to these topics, is "evangelical" enough to merit our blessing is silly and foolish. It is rout condemnation of good men and women scholars that is entirely ridiculous and I'll call it every time.

At some point we have to put away the rhetoric firearms and the nuclear option of calling someone a "liberal" in order to skirt the true issues and not deal with their credible insights and discussions. Just a few, friendly points.

 

[InTheLight]

OK....the mans weaknesses are clearly evident. So lets not pile on him. Rather lets be gracious and try to help the guy understand.

Under various screen names (DaChaser1, JesusFan, Yeshua1) he has asked the same questions with repetition, over and over, once and again, many times, repeatedly, frequently, time after time, again and again. Answers are given to no avail. It seems he doesn't want to learn. He just want to see his werds up showing on the screan!!

 

[Yeshua1]

isn't the view of the scriptures form the "Fundamentalist" approach though the valid one?

I take from some here that they do not wish to ascribe full inerrancy/infallibility to the Bible, as they wish it to be able to accomodate better to "scientific facts/truths", such as old age and evolution..

Am i seeing it wrong
here?