Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?

[Squire Robertsson]

Looking at the exchange between John and Craig, one can see the reasons behind the splits in the Northern Baptist Convention (GARBC and CBA)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What scholar of the Greek text of 2 Corinthians publishing today his or her research in peer-reviewed biblical journals does not believe that this book of the New Testament is a redaction of more than one original letter?

I would reply, any true evangelical scholar. Specifically, if 1997 is not too ancient for you, I refer you to Simon J. Kistemaker in his commentary on 2 Cor (Baker Book House, New Testament Commentary Series). He spends some time examining all the various theories and concludes by saying that unity is entirely possible. As JoJ says, there is no mss evidence to the contrary.

 

[TCassidy]

Looking at the exchange between John and Craig, one can see the reasons behind the splits in the Northern Baptist Convention (GARBC and CBA)

But even the CBA, the more Neo of the two, never got to the point Craig seems to be at.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I was alluding to the reasons for the two orgs split from the NBC. And further the FBFI's split from the CBA. It all came down to the question of inerrancy.

But even the CBA, the more Neo of the two, never got to the point Craig seems to be at.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Very good. I thank you for proving my point. You are arguing for types of criticism that, since they are not provable from the mss evidence, must be proven from church history. Oh, right, none of the church fathers give such evidence, and no church historian (Eusebius et al) give evidence of such modification of any oral tradition, so all you have left is speculation from vague internal factors. (Care to try and prove the existence of Q with no historical evidence whatsoever?)
I laughed out loud when I read this. Here you are presenting arguments for types of modification of the documents which have no historical evidence whatsoever, and yet you are calling my arguments irrational. Biggrin

I see that some contributors to this thread have not so much as a clue as to what literary criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism are, and know even less about their methodology. Therefore, here is a link to an introductory (and very brief) survey of biblical criticism that includes some additional helpful links: http://www.theopedia.com/biblical-criticism

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Of the contributors to this thread, TCassidy and John of Japan are very aware of the disciplines you are seeking to school them on.

I see that some contributors to this thread have not so much as a clue as to what literary criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism are, and know even less about their methodology. Therefore, here is a link to an introductory (and very brief) survey of biblical criticism that includes some additional helpful links: http://www.theopedia.com/biblical-criticism

 

[go2church]

Do you agree that inspiration is an essential doctrine? Further, do you believe in verbal-plenary inspiration?

The doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration demands a doctrine of inerrancy. 2 Tim. 3:16 and Paul's word there,θεόπνευστος, or "God-breathed," means that Scripture must be inerrant, or God Himself is errant. Many other Scriptures could be given, of course--no doubt you are familiar with them. But try this one: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Ps. 138:2). If Scripture is magnified above God's very name, then inerrancy is essential.

I completely disagree. Variants do not diminish inerrancy at all. As you admit, all doctrine is intact in whatever original text you use. Furthermore, every name of Christ, every event, every NT presentation of the Gospel, every OT or NT prophecy is preserved in every Greek or Hebrew text of the Word of God.

The words you use, "redefined, qualified and clarified," are not words used in textual criticism. I'm not sure where you are getting them, but they don't bother me in the slightest. I see nowhere in the inerrantist position where the doctrine must be "redefined, qualified and clarified" because of the variants. I certainly haven't done that. Would you care to quote an inerrantist author who has done so?

Inspiration yes, but mode of inspiration is not an essential doctrine.

The word "inerrancy" requires the qualifiers, and clarifications. Textual critics probably don't use the word at all. How many qualifiers does the Chicago Statement have, 25, 26? Even in this thread the question has been asked more than once "what do you mean by inerrancy?". Without error...but

 

[Revmitchell]

Asking what someone means by inerrancy in no way negates it or shows a problem with it. The issue is with people who want to muddy waters unnecessarily.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I would reply, any true evangelical scholar. Specifically, if 1997 is not too ancient for you, I refer you to Simon J. Kistemaker in his commentary on 2 Cor (Baker Book House, New Testament Commentary Series). He spends some time examining all the various theories and concludes by saying that unity is entirely possible. As JoJ says, there is no mss evidence to the contrary.

Thank you for bringing to my attention the commentary by Kistemaker. I have in my personal library approximately 900 commentaries on the individual books of the Bible, including first edition copies dating as far back as 1692. However, I seldom purchase commentaries written by scholars who are not internationally known for their contribution, after many years of research, to the study of book of the Bible that they are commenting upon. Obviously Kistemaker is not such a scholar as he has written commentaries on a number (9?) of books of the New Testament rather than on only one or two, and therefore could not devote much of his time to any of them. (Ernest de Witt Burton tells us in his preface to his commentary on Galatians that the study of that epistle was his primary area of study for 25 years. Ernst Käsemann tells us in his preface to his commentary on Romans that his commentary is the fruit of 50 years of studying and teaching that epistle). Therefore, I ask you, “Has Kistemaker ever published a research paper in a peer-reviewed biblical journal on the subject of the textual integrity of 2 Corinthians? If he has, please provide citations for those papers.


Have you read the commentary (2005) on 2 Corinthians by Murray J. Harris in “The New International Greek Testament Commentary” series? It is very much more extensive and detailed (1,117 pages) than Kistemaker’s commentary, and devotes 54 pages to the literary issues involved in the study of the structural integrity of the Greek text of the epistle.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Of the contributors to this thread, TCassidy and John of Japan are very aware of the disciplines you are seeking to school them on.

Their posts prove a VERY different reality!

 

[John of Japan]

I see that some contributors to this thread have not so much as a clue as to what literary criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism are, and know even less about their methodology. Therefore, here is a link to an introductory (and very brief) survey of biblical criticism that includes some additional helpful links: http://www.theopedia.com/biblical-criticism

Ad nauseum ad infinitum. Yes, I am familiar with all of the criticisms you mention. Had to study them in seminary, you know, and have studied some in more detail since then. Oh, and the article you linked to missed several, such as reader response criticism.

Nice side step--instead of actually answering my challenge for historical proof, you elect to pretend that I am in ignorance, and decide you must be my Bible college prof.

 

[Revmitchell]

Ad nauseum ad infinitum. Yes, I am familiar with all of the criticisms you mention. Had to study them in seminary, you know, and have studied some in more detail since then. Oh, and the article you linked to missed several, such as reader response criticism.

Nice side step--instead of actually answering my challenge for historical proof, you elect to pretend that I am in ignorance, and decide you must be my Bible college prof.

Old Craig has been hostile to this board, Christians, and anyone who does not see things his way ever since he first posted on this board.

 

[John of Japan]

Inspiration yes, but mode of inspiration is not an essential doctrine.

Well, it is, but only if you claim to be an evangelical.

You nicely sidestepped my query as to whether you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, and also my allusion to Paul's hapax legomena in 2 Tim. 3:16.

The word "inerrancy" requires the qualifiers, and clarifications. Textual critics probably don't use the word at all. How many qualifiers does the Chicago Statement have, 25, 26?

Textual critics don't use the term unless they are discussing the doctrine of inspiration. The term "inerrancy" is not immediately relevant to textual criticism. As for their beliefs on that score, Metzger is not an inerrantist but Robinson is. The gamut varies.

Even in this thread the question has been asked more than once "what do you mean by inerrancy?". Without error...but

And it has been answered. It means without error in all areas, including doctrine, history, science, etc. Everyone acquainted with the debate knows this. Read Harold Lindsell, W. A. Criswell, Francis Schaeffer, The Infallible Word (by the Westminster faculty). They are all clear about what inerrancy means. Those who are not clear are generally trying to muddy the waters.

 

[John of Japan]

Old Craig has been hostile to this board, Christians, and anyone who does not see things his way ever since he first posted on this board.

And thinks we owe him respect because of the greatness of his library, of which he often informs us.

 

[Revmitchell]

And thinks we owe him respect because of the greatness of his library, of which he often informs us.

Hmmm, wonder about the level of the Holy Ghost. Not knocking a library but it kind of sounds like church members who can quote the bylaws long before they can quote scripture.

 

[TCassidy]

And it has been answered. It means without error in all areas, including doctrine, history, science, etc. Everyone acquainted with the debate knows this. Read Harold Lindsell, W. A. Criswell, Francis Schaeffer, The Infallible Word (by the Westminster faculty). They are all clear about what inerrancy means. Those who are not clear are generally trying to muddy the waters.

Amen! Required reading for the Theology class I used to teach at the Seminary included both Lindsell's "The Battle for the Bible" and "The Bible in the Balance" which are both excellent entry level books that deal with inerrancy. (Dr. Lindsell has a special place in my heart in that he came out of Wheaton where my uncle, Kenneth Kantzer (my mother's maiden name was Kantzer), taught until moving to TEDS. Dr. Lindsell also suffered, as do I, from sensory-motor polyneuropathy, but continued to work in spite of the weakness, pain, and general misery, which makes him a hero in my book.)

Chaper 6 of "The Battle for the Bible" especially deals with inerrancy and Fuller's decline due to their failure to hold to a biblical position on that subject.

Chapter 6 can be read here: http://www.biblical-data.org/Fuller_seminary.pdf

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Therefore, I ask you, “Has Kistemaker ever published a research paper in a peer-reviewed biblical journal on the subject of the textual integrity of 2 Corinthians? If he has, please provide citations for those papers.

I have no idea, but one does not get to be Professor of New Testament at a seminary without publishing a few peer-reviewed research papers. You're the alleged expert on academia; go and look it up.

Have you read the commentary (2005) on 2 Corinthians by Murray J. Harris in “The New International Greek Testament Commentary” series? It is very much more extensive and detailed (1,117 pages) than Kistemaker’s commentary, and devotes 54 pages to the literary issues involved in the study of the structural integrity of the Greek text of the epistle.

This is a new idea to me. So the quality of someone's research is assessed by the number of pages he writes? Has the man trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation? If not, whatever he writes, and however much he writes, is a waste of time. Evangelicals in Britain are advised very strongly not to study theology at universities like Oxford or Cambridge because the Professors, however much they know about their subject academically, they don't know the Lord, which is all that really matters.(Jeremiah 9:23; Matthew 15:14).

 

[go2church]

Well, it is, but only if you claim to be an evangelical.

You nicely sidestepped my query as to whether you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, and also my allusion to Paul's hapax legomena in 2 Tim. 3:16.


Textual critics don't use the term unless they are discussing the doctrine of inspiration. The term "inerrancy" is not immediately relevant to textual criticism. As for their beliefs on that score, Metzger is not an inerrantist but Robinson is. The gamut varies.

And it has been answered. It means without error in all areas, including doctrine, history, science, etc. Everyone acquainted with the debate knows this. Read Harold Lindsell, W. A. Criswell, Francis Schaeffer, The Infallible Word (by the Westminster faculty). They are all clear about what inerrancy means. Those who are not clear are generally trying to muddy the waters.

Didn't side step, said mode wasn't essential. Plenty of folks consider themselves evangelical without affirming plenary inspiration. But you knew that. Even the NAE doesn't prescribe a mode of inspiration in its doctrine statement, inerrancy either. Baptist Faith and Message 1963 and 2000 make no mention of mode of inspiration. Are these folks not evangelical or is that you don't consider them evangelical?

http://nae.net/statement-of-faith/

http://www.baptiststart.com/print/1963_baptist_faith_message.html

http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp

So we agree the textual critic, I think?

Read two of those books...

 

[Squire Robertsson]

A good question would be:

Who are the peers doing the reviews in the peer reviewed journal?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The problem is for men like John and myself, the positions of the NAE and the SBC while interesting are not applicable. As neither of us are now or have been part of either movement.