I'm a big fan of Craig who I believe, like NT Wright, has done a great service to the church by emphasizing that Jesus has to be interpreted in a Jewish context rather than via the popularizers' tendencies of pagan myths, etc.

That being said, I'd love to hear comments on this statement by Craig which appears in an Internet reponse to a question on his debate with Bart Ehrman. How would this statement square with the confessions regarding the nature of Scripture and where it stands in the Christian's epistemology?

"Ehrman had, it seems to me, a flawed theological system of beliefs as a Christian. It seems that at the center of his web of theological beliefs was biblical inerrancy, and everything else, like the beliefs in the deity of Christ and in his resurrection, depended on that. Once the center was gone, the whole web soon collapsed. But when you think about it, such a structure is deeply flawed. At the center of our web of beliefs ought to be some core belief like the belief that God exists, with the deity and resurrection of Christ somewhere near the center. The doctrine of inspiration of Scripture will be somewhere further out and inerrancy even farther toward the periphery as a corollary of inspiration. If inerrancy goes, the web will feel the reverberations of that loss, as we adjust our doctrine of inspiration accordingly, but the web will not collapse because belief in God and Christ and his resurrection and so on don’t depend upon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy."

__________________
Joel Batts
Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) - Memphis, TN

I believe that many would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand. - CS Lewis

Web of belief is important but Craig should have specified by saying Erhman had a rationalistic view of inerrancy and when that fell, as fall it must, the rest fell.

If that is true Erhman placed his whole hope on a rationalistic, post-Enlightenment view of reason to support his Christianity. I am not surprised he went the way he did.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

The first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith deals with Scripture for a reason.

We derive all our knowledge necessary for salvation from God's Word. Through it, and it alone, we know God.

The statement:
"belief in God and Christ and his resurrection and so on don’t depend upon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy," is so absurd, it is almost shocking. If Scripture is not inerrant, then how can we be sure about anything it teaches us concerning God and Christ and his resurrection and so on? Is there knowledge of God and Christ available from some other source? Yes, the works of God are clearly seen in creation, but that is a far cry from saying knowledge necessary for salvation can be found in some other place besides the words of the Bible.

Craig and those like him have already lost the war if they are not fighting the battle over inerracy. They will have no weapon with which to defend Christianity, if they do not have a reliable Sword.

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

[quote=sastark;523232]The first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith deals with Scripture for a reason.

We derive all our knowledge necessary for salvation from God's Word. Through it, and it alone, we know God.

The statement:
"belief in God and Christ and his resurrection and so on don’t depend upon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy," is so absurd, it is almost shocking. If Scripture is not inerrant, then how can we be sure about anything it teaches us concerning God and Christ and his resurrection and so on? Is there knowledge of God and Christ available from some other source? Yes, the works of God are clearly seen in creation, but that is a far cry from saying knowledge necessary for salvation can be found in some other place besides the words of the Bible.[QUOTE]

Let me anticipate a rejoinder from Craig:

"I am an inerrantist. However, let's assume the Bible is not inerrant for the sake of the unbelieving questioner. Does errancy necessarily reduce to a fact of nothing being accurately known from Scripture? Moreover, inerrancy does not guarantee that all of Scripture can be known accurately. There are portions that remain difficult and not fully understood. I believe these things to be fully resolved in the mind of God, hence my inerrantist view.

But going back to the view that the Bible is not inerrant, we can indeed know certain things with confidence...". I think Craig would then push the unbeliever at this point toward the early creedal formulation from I Cor 15 and argue that regardless of one's position on inerrancy, this text meets the criteria for historical reliability. He would argue that the alternative explanation (Jesus did not die / was not raised from the dead) does not explain facts such as the beginning of the church, the enthusiasm of the apostles post-resurrection even to the point of death, etc.

Let's assume Craig responds this way...on that basis why is it absurd to say that "belief in God and Christ and his resurrection...doesn't depend upon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy"?

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 01:46:57 EST-----

[quote=Ivanhoe;523230]What then could Craig have offered to show that it was not inerrancy that should have been thrown out, but Ehrman's particular brand of inerrancy? (IOW, what view of inerrancy stands up to the test?)

What is the difference a rationalistic view of inerrancy vs. a Biblical one?

Also what do you see as the pre vs. post enlightenment view of Reason.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

[quote][QUOTE=sotzo;523259]This response seems correct.

It surely doesn't seem absurd to make the sort of statement that Craig makes.

We wouldn't want to say that beliefs generated by perceptual experience are wholly unreliable given that they are sometimes mistaken. That would be an unwarranted move to make.

__________________
^Brian Lanier^
OPC
Philosophy, SFSU
Main Area of Interest: Religious Epistemology

For the patristics and the medievals Reason and Faith participated in God. I refer to John Milbank on this one. Now, it seems that Erhman acts on the assumption--as does Craig for that matter--that if the factoids say the Bible is errant, the Bible is errant. While I am not really a Van Tillian, Craig/Erhman is positing bare facts and an autonomous view of reason.

I don't think Craig would say that if the factoids say the Bible is errant, the Bible is errant. Rather, I think he would say that one's apologetic should be able to give a reason to the unbeliever as to why Jesus is the one in whom he should place his trust. And for an unregenerated unbeliever, inerrancy is an impossible starting point for the discussion since the Holy Spirit is not dwelling there. Of course, God can regenerate where and when he is pleased to do so and if the person being addressed accepts inerrancy then so be it. I think Craig is distinguishing between how he knows Christianity to be true (indwelling of the Holy Spirit in his own life) versus showing Christianity to be true. This may be a point where we presuppers can modify our approach in for the many times we do not have a straightforward Bahnsen/Stein discussion with an unbeliever.

I've read Craig on the matter of "showing" vs "knowing." If I were a clever unbeliever I would point out how he presupposes God and is not being neutral.

But since Craig is confident in his arguments for God's existence, why should that be a problem? And the issue is never about being neutral, it is about being correct.

CT

-----Added 1/7/2009 at 04:16:49 EST-----

I would agree that if the factoids say the Bible is errant, then the Bible is errant. The whole point of Presuppositionalism is to eventually show forth that the factoids say X, instead of some believing that the factoids say Y. Without that all one has is some form of fideism.

CT

Sure. But I'm starting to see that most people don't think presuppositionally...that is, although it is a fact that presuppositions (including the noetic effect of sin) about the world govern evaluation of evidence, most people think absent knowledge of those presuppositions. It's like digestion...I can't explain the entire cascade of events that occurs in digestion, but I continue to digest and telling me I'm not digesting right fails because I don't understand what is in back of digestion....I know I can digest because, well, I'm digesting. Similarly, telling an unbeliever who is evaluating the Bible that they can't justify logic or use of historical evidence because their presupps are wrong often just turns the conversation off. The fact is, they are using logic and they are using historical evidence...telling them they can't do that makes less sense to them than the ground (or lack thereof) of the epistemology they wish to invoke.

I think this is where Craig, in a nutshell, is going.