Featured Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?

Everyone old Craig approves of.

 

I understand, but would you consider either of those groups "evangelical"?

 

TCassidy,

Good summary. Interestingly, have only encountered one individual (that I can remember) that held to position 3, dictation. They went as far to say that the chapter and verse numbers were also inspired!

The key for me in this thread is "essential". Though I am not a fan of the whole "what's the least I can believe and still be a Christian", there are some things that are a matter of opinion, as it were. Also, I recognize that each group, ministry, church... Has what they consider to be essential, which can and usually is, further reaching than just the basics of who Jesus is and salvation by grace. In that sense essential is fluid. There is threshold of Christianity and then there is the threshold of identification and participation with a particular Christian group.

 

Was he KJVO?

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Nice post at #141. Glad to see you still consider the #4'ers your brother

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

A lot of data requires a lot of pages in a book, and very careful and thorough analysis of the data also requires a lot of pages in book.

Are you not familiar with Murray Harris? Surely you are aware that he is professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

I do not believe that the evangelical Christians in Britain are such chowderheads as to not be familiar with some of the men of God who teach in the universities of Cambridge and Oxford. Certainly my students from Britain have not been that profoundly ignorant of their own universities!

How sad it is that some men lack the knowledge to refute the wisdom and knowledge of the wise and educated, but know very well how to insult them! Is it a matter of jealousy, a matter of covetousness, or simply an evil and sinful heart? Whatever it is, I hate it with a burning passion because the very first thing that I experienced upon being forgiven of my sins and being baptized in the Holy Spirit was an unspeakable love for my savior and my fellow man. And I hate it all the more when the people being castigated are men of God who have yielded their lives to God’s call of a lifetime of study of His word.

 

Your challenge for historical proof proves that you are not familiar with even the very basic principles of redaction criticism. Moreover, I did not sidestep your challenge; I manifested the absurdity of it. Furthermore, I cited the commentary on 2 Corinthians by Harris and informed my readers that the author devotes 54 pages to the literary issues in that epistle—and those 54 pages include the citations of works by over 40 scholars who have advocated for the structural integrity of the epistle, providing the names of the publications and page numbers so that those who disagree with the author can readily read what his dissenters have written. Harris is a scholar of the highest caliber, not only in his wisdom and knowledge, but in his fairness, courtesy, and honesty.

I appreciated your courtesy and friendliness in the thread on Greek grammars, but I find those qualities sadly lacking in this thread. If you feel the same way about my posts, I apologize for anything in them that may have been uncalled for. May God abundantly bless you!

Craigbythesea

 

Here is Kistemaker's output (thanks to a scholar friend of mine). Sounds like a top drawer scholar to me:

BOOKS

• The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2010)
• The Miracles: Exploring the Mystery of Jesus' Divine Works (Baker Books, 2006)
• Conversations of Jesus: Learning from His Encounters (Baker Books, 2004)
• Co-editor, New Testament Commentary 12 Volume Set (Baker Academic, 2002)
• The Parables: Understanding the Stories Jesus Told (Baker Books, 2002)
• Revelation (Baker Academic, 2001)
• 2 Corinthians (Baker Books, 1997)
• James, Epistles of John, Peter, and Jude (Baker Books, 1996)
• Hebrews (Baker Books, 1996)
• Contributor, New Geneva Study Bible (Thomas Nelson, 1995)
• 1 Corinthians (Baker Books, 1993)
• Acts (Baker Academic, 1991)
• The Gospels in Current Study (Baker Book House, 1972)
• Contributor to multiple reference volumes

SELECT ARTICLES

• "Jesus as Storyteller: Literary Perspectives on the Parables," in Master's Seminary Journal 16:1 (2005), 49-55.
• "The Authorship of Hebrews," in Faith and Mission 18:2 (2001), 57-69.
• "The Temple in the Apocalypse," in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (2000), 433-441.
• "'Deliver this man to Satan' (1 Cor. 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline," in Master's Seminary Journal, 3:1 (1992), 33-46.
• "The Speeches in Acts," in Criswell Theological Review 5:3 (1990), 31-41.
• "The Acts of the Apostles: History, Names, Sources and Purpose," inTheological Educator 42:3 (1990), 63-70.
• "The Theological Message of James," in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (1986), 55-61.
• "The Structure of Luke's Gospel," in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25:1 (1982) 33-39.
• "Lord's Prayer in the First Century," in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21:4 (1978), 323-328.
• "Canon of the New Testament," in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20:1 (1977), 3-14.
• "Seven Words from the Cross," in Westminster Theological Journal 38:2 (1976), 82-191.
• "Current Problems and Projects in New Testament Research," in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18:1 (1975), 17-28.

But then some people only go for ivory tower types who study one book for decades but never seem to get it.... I mean, whole articles on the unity of 2 Corinthians? Right. Cautious

Here is how my article on the unity of 2 Corinthians would look:

"Some people think 2 Corinthians 1-9 and 10-13 were written by different authors (or even both by Paul) and later combined. There is no external evidence of this at all. Nothing in the manuscripts, nothing in church history or tradition. The internal evidence is nothing more than that the tone of the sections is different. The verdict must be that the book is a unity."

64 words and done. What do you think, BB peers? Please review my article.

 

Not to rabbit trail, but to merely ask the question.

I noticed when reading the account TCassidy linked (Fuller Exposed) that paralleled to the adjustment in the statement of inerrancy was also the embracing of amill teaching as a viable doctrine.

Note: This is not a discussion on the pro's or con's of amill teaching, but a question involving the side effects of inerrancy.

My question: Is there a study or perhaps a survey of teachers and what they hold in the area of inerrancy and what they also align in the matters of both eschatology and soteriology?

In my personal experience (not that it matters in the slightest) those that move away from the "verbal and formal" and closer to the "intuition and natural" also seem to become less entwined with the pre-mil view(s).

I think that this is also born out in the record of what transpired(s) at Fuller as given in the "Fuller Exposed." As those who did not hold to "verbal and formal" were invited and became part of the faculty, the seminary also moved away from the statements requiring acceptance of the Pre-mil and dispensational view(s).

 

But John. The problem according to Craig by the sea is that there is not a concentrated effort upon a single book that took a lifetime to discern.

Apparently, there is foundation-ally more authority to be given to scholars who must concentrate upon a single area to be profound according to what I have read of Craig.

Now, I am not suggesting that the scholarship is to be diminished when one concentrates upon a single item or focuses primarily upon a single area.

What I suggest is that the focus on that single area or item is not nor does it make that study more naturally authoritative than someone who has a broader range of study and writing. There is a need for consideration in both types.

 

Back when I actually would write letters, more often the "tone" of the letter would change and dependent upon the reader would do so to target certain issues.

That is not unusual, nor is it uncharacteristic of the history of letter writing.

What does not change (imo) is the structures of the grammar, the cadence, and the choice of vocabulary. Changes in those areas would indicate a change in time, in place written, in the influence of colloquial and so forth.

Because none of those things occur, then I concur with your statement in 64 words that took you a lifetime of learning to read, practicing reading skills, discovering the consistency and grammar skills, the application of logical to the literary and .... then to post such wisdom on the BB. We are honored to be asked to be your peer reviewers.

 

You did sidestep in that you did not answer (and still do not answer) my statement about 2 Tim. 3:16 and the mode of inspiration.

The term "evangelical" has gradually become more and more diluted since the 1946 when Harold Ockenga announced a "new evangelicalism," believing that fundamentalism (essentially the evangelicalism of the day) was divisive and neglected social issues (though fundamentalism had been feeding the poor in "rescue missions" for decades).

Joined by such men as Carl Henry and Billy Graham, Ockenga and his New Evangelicalism began to rip up lines of personal separation that had existed for decades. They also ripped up lines of ecclesiastical separation, fellowshipping and cooperating with liberals who did not even believe in the deity of Christ, much less verbal-plenary inspiration. (See the whole story in such volumes as The New Evangelical Theology, by SBC theological stalwart Millard Erickson, or Neo-Evangelicalism by former Dallas prof Robert Lightner.)

The result is a hapless evangelicalism which thinks anything can be believed in their Bibliology and that's okay. I disagree with all of my heart. If we abandon verbal-plenary inspiration and it's corollary of inerrancy, the house falls down. Therefore I am not just a fundamentalist, but stand with conservative evangelicals such as Harold Lindsell and Francis Schaeffer, who wrote, "Does inerrancy make a difference? Overwhelmingly; the difference is that with the Bible being what it is, God's Word and so absolute, God's objective truth, we do not need to be, and we should not be, caught in the ever-changing fallen cultures which surround us" (The Great Evangelical Disaster, p. 61).

The current political state of politics and social activism illustrates my point. With the lines drawn for centuries ripped up, most modern evangelicals have no idea where to take a stand. That's why I'm still a fundamentalist, which though it has visible flaws, takes a stand.

My grandfather was a founding father of the NAE, but then left it when the new evangelical compromise set in. So their weak statement is not surprising.

This is a very strong statement, with such words as "perfect" and "without any mixture of error." I'm pretty sure those statements point to a belief in a verbally inspired, inerrant Bible.

Again, a strong statement following the 1963 BFM, obviously pointing to a verbal-plenary view. I knew an SBC missionary couple in Japan who did not believe in inerrancy, but were forced to resign when the International Board decided maybe they should actually enforce loyalty to the BFM. (What a novel idea!)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this statement.

 

The problem with concentrating on one book of the Bible, a path Craig suggests as authoritative, is that each book of the Bible has a context of the entire Scripture. (I speak as one who has written a commentary on Galatians.) So that makes someone like Kistemaker much more balanced than the man who spends his whole career on one book, or even one facet of one book.

 

Yeah, saying that I'm ignorant, and that my challenge is absurd is gracious, right? I simply replied in kind.

Now you've narrowed your focus to redaction criticism. For those not familiar with this, it "focuses on the literary and theological contributions of the authors of the Gospels" (Carson, Moo and Morris, previously cited, p. 21). Now, since we have not yet been debating about the Gospels, I fail to see any connection with your arguments on this thread so far...except that once again, any possible redaction of the Gospel content has no mss or historical proof.

Okay, take care.

 

It's a bit wordy but otherwise, right on!

You are also right in your comments on evangelicalism. The word 'evangelical' has become so broad as to be utterly meaningless. In Britain, we have Steve Chalke undermining the authority of the Bible just as fast as he can go, and yet still calling himself evangelical. Churchgoing in Britain is falling off a cliff, but it is the liberal and pseudo-evangelical churches that are disappearing. Bible-believing churches are holding their own or even increasing.

'Thus says the LORD, "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls." But they said, "We will not walk in it."' (Jeremiah 6:16).

 

This is quite an old article, but do read it; you'll fall about laughing!
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rsposse/pooh.htm

 

John,

Inspired yes, concerning verbal plenary, I would say no. Thought that was implied in my answer, when I said mode is not essential.

Neither the NAE, the BF&M's require, as you would seem to require, a mode of inspiration. In fact Herschel Hobbs wrote in his book "The Baptist Faith and Message" said

"Which of these two theories* one holds has never been a test of orthodoxy among Southern Baptists. For both groups see all of the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God."

*The two theories Hobbs is speaking of are number 4 and 5 from TCassidy's list of theories of inspiration.

So, it isn't exactly as obvious as you say.

I would rather have loyalty to Jesus than any written document. That people were fired for NOT believing something that was NOT in the statement of faith is one of the more confusing and sad chapters in SBC life.