Inerrancy in Historical Theology

[Peairtach]

McGowan's position is quite confusing. He doesn't like the doctrine of inerrancy, but he says he doesn't believe in errancy either. He may be trying to have his cake and eat it.

I shouldn't comment as I haven't read the book. Here's Dr Iain D. Campbell's critique of it:-

Creideamh: Search results for mcgowan

and John Richard de Witt:-

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

 

[TimV]

Larry, here are some quotes from Augustine on the subject

In this letter I have further to say, that I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places. I would have put down here an extract or two in illustration of this criticism; but at present I have not access to the manuscript of the translation from the Hebrew. Since, however, your quick discernment anticipates and goes beyond not only what I have said, but also what I meant to say, you already understand, I think, enough to be able, by giving the reason for the plan which you have adopted, to explain what perplexes me.

For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities pronounced to be in the wrong?

Letters of Augustine (No. 28, 71, 82) and the Letters of Jerome (No. 112) in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Translated into English with Prolegomena and Explanatory Notes under the Editorial Supervision of Henry Wace and Philip Schaff. (Oxford: Parker; New York: Christian Literature Co., 1890-1900).

And from chapter 44 of his City of God

But some one may say, "How shall I know whether the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites, 'Yet three days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,' or forty days?" [Jon. iii. 4.] For who does not see that the prophet could not say both, when he was sent to terrify the city by the threat of imminent ruin? For if its destruction was to take place on the third day, it certainly could not be on the fortieth; but if on the fortieth, then certainly not on the third. If, then, I am asked which of these Jonah may have said, I rather think what is read in the Hebrew, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Yet the Seventy, interpreting long afterward, could say what was different and yet pertinent to the matter, and agree in the self-same meaning, although under a different signification. And this may admonish the reader not to despise the authority of either, but to raise himself above the history, and search for those things which the history itself was written to set forth

.

Note the bolded section. So you can see he wanted an ecumenical text (at least with the OT) and he was willing that the text contained errors of transmission, but that those errors didn't change any Christian doctrine. Or at least that's how I read him.

 

[P.F.]

TimV:

Would you agree with me that Augustine (like Whitaker) believed that the autographs were without error?

 

[TimV]

Hi

Yes, from what I understand, he felt the autographs inspired. If nothing else, those who believe the autographs were not inspired would use Augustine for "ammo" just like those who don't believe in 6 day creation use Augustine for ammo to support their side. In other words, those who don't believe in the Genesis account use Augustine as a fellow traveller, since he clearly didn't believe in 6 day creationism. And if Augustine truly doubted that the autographs were without error, those modernists who also felt/feel that way would claim him as a fellow traveller, but to my knowledge don't.

But my reading of him is severely limited, what with me being a construction worker and all. I've only concentrated on his view of the LXX and a very few other issues, and I find him (surely due to my limitations) difficult.

Best

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hay Guys:

I was not aware that my little book review would touch off such a serious firestorm. I think that those who hold to inerrancy need to answer some questions as a means of defining their position fully:

1) Did Satan misquote (thus produce an error) when he quoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptation of Jesus?

2) God says to Job that he and his friends did not speak perfectly - thus stating that they erred - but God does not "correct" or "point out" their errors?

3) When Paul says that he baptized only a few people in Corinth, and then, later on, says he also baptized others - was his original statement in error?

Since I am about to start class I will leave you with these "errors" to think about.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Christusregnat]

Hi

Yes, from what I understand, he felt the autographs inspired.

Inerrant though?

 

[TimV]

Inerrant though?

Yes! I caught that lack of clarity and edited my post while you were making yours.

 

[P.F.]

Rob:

As to your three-part question:

1) Did Satan misquote (thus produce an error) when he quoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptation of Jesus?

As to the traditional doctrine of inerrancy, the answer is that the Scriptures accurately relate what Satan said. As Theodoret explains in Question 88 on Genesis, "So no one should imagine that such words are those of holy Scripture; the author sets down the words of pagans, because he is writing history." Likewise, when Scripture tells us that the fool said in his heart, "There is no god," that is not an error on the part of Scripture, though it is on the part of the fool.

2) God says to Job that he and his friends did not speak perfectly - thus stating that they erred - but God does not "correct" or "point out" their errors?

I'd beg to differ with this interpretation of Job. Nevertheless, a similar interpretation to that given about as to (1) may be set forth here as well.

3) When Paul says that he baptized only a few people in Corinth, and then, later on, says he also baptized others - was his original statement in error?

No.

 

[Christusregnat]

1) Did Satan misquote (thus produce an error) when he quoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptation of Jesus?

2) God says to Job that he and his friends did not speak perfectly - thus stating that they erred - but God does not "correct" or "point out" their errors?

3) When Paul says that he baptized only a few people in Corinth, and then, later on, says he also baptized others - was his original statement in error?

Rob,

Is this a serious series of question? It is hard for me you to believe that you are serious in these.

If, for example, the Holy Spirit provides us a quotation of an erroneous statement (questions 1 and 2 above), does that mean that the Holy Spirit was guilty of error? If the Holy Spirit retells the sinful actions of men, does that make the Holy Spirit guilty of their sins? The questions are ridiculous.

As for the third, the usage of sacrasm, hyperbole and exaggeration are not errors; those who read them amiss are in error.

These questions do not give the Holy Spirit the benefit of the doubt, and I pray that you are not ensnared by such jejune irrationality.


Adam

 

[Wayne]

Rob:

Have you read Warfield, or Woodbridge, or Beale on this topic?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

It is breaktime - so I can answer some of these points.

Adam - you are reading into my questions more than what I say. This is an example of the rationalist presuppositions which indwell the inerrantist position.

Wayne - I have read Warfield on this issue, and I am familiar with Woodbridge from McGowan and speaking with others. I have just picked up Beale's book "The erosion of inerrancy in evangelism."

Inerrancy has been eroded to the point where an evangelical can be defined as the emerging church. We see a degrading progression concerning inspiration from the 19th century onwards. Warfield degraded inspiration by using a rationalist approach and formulating the current inerrantist position. Now inerrancy is being degraded to something akin to postmodern/neo-orthodox understanding of Scripture.

Sorry class is starting....

Rob

 

[py3ak]

Rob, take your time. It is better to answer judiciously than to answer in haste. And I think you have at least one more pressing matter.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

I have homework to do, but I do have a few minutes to flesh this out some more. I think a quote from McGowan's book may help:

My argument is that Scripture, having been divinely spirated, is as God intended it to be. Having freely chosen to use human beings, God knew what he was doing. He did not give us an inerrant autographical text, because he did not intend to do so. He gave us a text that reflects the humanity of its authors but that, at the same time, clearly evidences its origin in the divine speaking. Through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, God is perfectly able to use these Scriptures to accomplish his purposes ... Lest there be some who suspect that I am really presenting a slightly different version of the Rogers and McKim hypothesis, it is important to clarify the difference between their position and the position advocated in this chapter ... I am arguing for a high view of Scripture, based on a verbal spiration of the text but one which accepts that God chose to use human authors, with all the implications of that decision. In other words, I am arguing that Scripture is as God intended it to be, in his gracious providential overruling, but reject the impication that thereby the autographia must be inerrant, p. 124.

McGowan is forced to come to this decision because: 1) There is no clear teaching in Scripture that advocates the modern view of inerrancy, and, 2) There is no satisfactory argument from "good and necessary consequence" which teaches inerrancy. The idea of inerrancy neglects the human element in the Scriptures.

On the same page McGowan talks of the Rogers/McKim and Woodbridge debate:

Their (Rogers and McKim) analysis of the theology of Calvin is particularly striking. They lay heavy stress on his understanding of accommodation, literalism and the nature of 'error' and argue that he was relatively unconcerned with minor discrepanciees in the text and certainly did not hold an inerrantist position. John Woodbridge, in his response, produces many references where Calvin appears to have a very high view of Scripture, even occasionally verging on the dictation theory. On the whole, Woodbridge had the best of the argument, but the problem remains - there are references produced by Rodgers and McKim that cannot be accommodated by Woodbridge's hypothesis, and there are references produced by Woodbridge that cannot be accommodated by Rogers and McKim's hypothesis. How are we to explain this difficuty?

The answer lies in recognizing that we are being offered a false choice here. We do not have to choose between Woodbridge's inerrantist text and Rogers and McKim's errantist text. There is a third option, namely that the Scriptures we have are precisely as God intended them to be, but we must take seriously the fact that God used human authors to communicate his Word and did not make them into ciphers in do so. Calvin and Luther understood this and gave a much higher place to the humanness of the Scriptures than later writers in the Reformed tradition. That is why neither Rogers and McKim nor Woodbridge can get them to 'fit' completely into their theories ... As far as they (Luther and Calvin) were concerned, the Scriptures had come from God and could therefore be trusted, but having used human authors one must expect these minor textual difficulties. Certainly, these textual matters should not be regarded as undermining the supreme authority of God's Word, 124-125. parenthesis mine

The Holy Spirit can use the errors of the human authors of Scripture for His Own Purpose. Thus, when Matthew writes down the errors of Satan - he does so under the approbation of the Spirit of God. The error is recorded and is a part of Scripture because God has a purpose in presenting it.

What is the consequence of saying that the words of Satan are not a part of Scripture? Can we then edit out these words and have a complete teaching from Christ?

There are two principles at work here:

The first involves text-critical matters. Over the centuries "errors" have been introduced through the copying process. In this specific category we can speak of an inerrant autograph - that the autographs are free from copying errors. They have to be, because they are the originals! I believe that the large majority of what Augustine and others are saying is speaking to that very point.

The authentic copies of these autographs (as spoken of in the WCF 1:8) are also free from copy errors, and, because they contain every jot and tittle of the autographs, are just as inspired as the autographs. Consequently, these copies have the authority of the autographs and are the rule and touchstone concerning all controversies of religion.

To give an example of this: If we have Paul's autograph of the Book of Romans, and we made a clear photocopy of it, then the copy would be as inspired as the original. This is not because of any virtue in the copy machine, but because it is an exact copy of the original. As this is the case - the copy would be as inspired - and inerrant - as the autograph.

It is the second principle that I think McGowan is addressing:

That God allowed errors into the autographs for the accomplishment of His Own Special Purpose. Inerrantists need to explain the errors away because they have brought into the arguments of the 19th Century rationalists. They explain these errors away either as, 1) The errors are not a part of Scripture, 2) They use a bizarre theological or textual juggling to prove that they are not errors, or, 3) Finally, they claim that there are no errors in the autographs, but these are simply copy errors accumulated over the centuries. I am sure there are other points as well - these are the ones that I am familiar with at this juncture.

I think that McGowan is touching upon something that is very important in the Reformed understanding of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, but is seriously lacking in the idea of inerrancy. The inerrantists are so fanatical about defending the Spirit-Inspired Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16), that they forget that "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," (2 Pt 1:21), and, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son," (Heb 1:1-2). They miss the human element in Scripture - especially regarding the inspired errors in the autographs.

Hope this helps,

In Jesus,

Rob

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam - you are reading into my questions more than what I say. This is an example of the rationalist presuppositions which indwell the inerrantist position.

I'm sorry Rob, but your driveby epithets move very little. Your assertions are moving further and further away from orthodoxy. The Bible is not the word of man, it is the Word of God. Modern "scholarship" is craven for respectability, and you seem to be swept up in this as well.

The recording of Satan's error is not an error. This is such a ridiculous assertion that it makes me wonder why you would want to even say such a thing. The bottom line is that since the rise of German Rationalism, men have been craven before their Gnostic idols. Men such as Philip Schaff introduced this middle position by dismissing the "magical inspiration" theory of Augustine as the Reformers as "untenable" in a "scientific and critical age". You have fallen into his trap, and your end will be with Schaff. If you are consistent with this fear of man position, you will be devoured. You are cutting up the faith by its roots: our faith does not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the wisdom and power of God. If Paul could say that the preaching of the apostles and prophets was received "not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the Word of God", HOW MUCH MORE THEIR WRITINGS?!

 

[toddpedlar]

Hi:

I have homework to do, but I do have a few minutes to flesh this out some more. I think a quote from McGowan's book may help:

My argument is that Scripture, having been divinely spirated, is as God intended it to be. Having freely chosen to use human beings, God knew what he was doing. He did not give us an inerrant autographical text, because he did not intend to do so. He gave us a text that reflects the humanity of its authors but that, at the same time, clearly evidences its origin in the divine speaking. Through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, God is perfectly able to use these Scriptures to accomplish his purposes ... Lest there be some who suspect that I am really presenting a slightly different version of the Rogers and McKim hypothesis, it is important to clarify the difference between their position and the position advocated in this chapter ... I am arguing for a high view of Scripture, based on a verbal spiration of the text but one which accepts that God chose to use human authors, with all the implications of that decision. In other words, I am arguing that Scripture is as God intended it to be, in his gracious providential overruling, but reject the impication that thereby the autographia must be inerrant, p. 124.

McGowan is forced to come to this decision because: 1) There is no clear teaching in Scripture that advocates the modern view of inerrancy, and, 2) There is no satisfactory argument from "good and necessary consequence" which teaches inerrancy. The idea of inerrancy neglects the human element in the Scriptures.

On the same page McGowan talks of the Rogers/McKim and Woodbridge debate:

Their (Rogers and McKim) analysis of the theology of Calvin is particularly striking. They lay heavy stress on his understanding of accommodation, literalism and the nature of 'error' and argue that he was relatively unconcerned with minor discrepanciees in the text and certainly did not hold an inerrantist position. John Woodbridge, in his response, produces many references where Calvin appears to have a very high view of Scripture, even occasionally verging on the dictation theory. On the whole, Woodbridge had the best of the argument, but the problem remains - there are references produced by Rodgers and McKim that cannot be accommodated by Woodbridge's hypothesis, and there are references produced by Woodbridge that cannot be accommodated by Rogers and McKim's hypothesis. How are we to explain this difficuty?

The answer lies in recognizing that we are being offered a false choice here. We do not have to choose between Woodbridge's inerrantist text and Rogers and McKim's errantist text. There is a third option, namely that the Scriptures we have are precisely as God intended them to be, but we must take seriously the fact that God used human authors to communicate his Word and did not make them into ciphers in do so. Calvin and Luther understood this and gave a much higher place to the humanness of the Scriptures than later writers in the Reformed tradition. That is why neither Rogers and McKim nor Woodbridge can get them to 'fit' completely into their theories ... As far as they (Luther and Calvin) were concerned, the Scriptures had come from God and could therefore be trusted, but having used human authors one must expect these minor textual difficulties. Certainly, these textual matters should not be regarded as undermining the supreme authority of God's Word, 124-125. parenthesis mine

The Holy Spirit can use the errors of the human authors of Scripture for His Own Purpose. Thus, when Matthew writes down the errors of Satan - he does so under the approbation of the Spirit of God. The error is recorded and is a part of Scripture because God has a purpose in presenting it.

What is the consequence of saying that the words of Satan are not a part of Scripture? Can we then edit out these words and have a complete teaching from Christ?

If the words of Satan are what Satan said, then their presence in the autographs is not an "error in the autographs". To argue that such IS an example of "errors in the autoraphs", it seems to me, a complete misunderstanding of inerrancy.

There are two principles at work here:

The first involves text-critical matters. Over the centuries "errors" have been introduced through the copying process. In this specific category we can speak of an inerrant autograph - that the autographs are free from copying errors. They have to be, because they are the originals! I believe that the large majority of what Augustine and others are saying is speaking to that very point.

On what basis do you say that?

The authentic copies of these autographs (as spoken of in the WCF 1:8) are also free from copy errors, and, because they contain every jot and tittle of the autographs, are just as inspired as the autographs. Consequently, these copies have the authority of the autographs and are the rule and touchstone concerning all controversies of religion.

And why would this be a problem?

It is the second principle that I think McGowan is addressing:

That God allowed errors into the autographs for the accomplishment of His Own Special Purpose. Inerrantists need to explain the errors away because they have brought into the arguments of the 19th Century rationalists. They explain these errors away either as, 1) The errors are not a part of Scripture, 2) They use a bizarre theological or textual juggling to prove that they are not errors, or, 3) Finally, they claim that there are no errors in the autographs, but these are simply copy errors accumulated over the centuries. I am sure there are other points as well - these are the ones that I am familiar with at this juncture.

I think that McGowan is touching upon something that is very important in the Reformed understanding of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, but is seriously lacking in the idea of inerrancy. The inerrantists are so fanatical about defending the Spirit-Inspired Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16), that they forget that "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," (2 Pt 1:21), and, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son," (Heb 1:1-2). They miss the human element in Scripture - especially regarding the inspired errors in the autographs.

So let me be very plain, because your excess verbiage eludes interpretation.

Do you intend to say that some of the time when God "spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets" the prophets messed up what was to be said? That is, are there mistakes in Scripture - things that the human authors wrote, but which are incorrect - where, because of their humanness, the authors messed up the intended revelation of truth? That is - an example of this might be that instead of fish WITH scales and fins being unclean, fish WITHOUT scales and fins are in fact unclean. Is this kind of error in the autographs because of the humanness of their authors? If you're continually going back to "the humanness of the authors" isn't this your main point - that such errors exist (for the purpose of the Holy Spirit, as you say)?

Or, do you merely mean that there are things recorded that are untrue? (e.g. the words of Satan in Genesis 3, "you will not surely die") These NO inerrantist would deny.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

I have homework to do, but I do have a few minutes to flesh this out some more. I think a quote from McGowan's book may help:

My argument is that Scripture, having been divinely spirated, is as God intended it to be. Having freely chosen to use human beings, God knew what he was doing. He did not give us an inerrant autographical text, because he did not intend to do so. He gave us a text that reflects the humanity of its authors but that, at the same time, clearly evidences its origin in the divine speaking. Through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, God is perfectly able to use these Scriptures to accomplish his purposes ... Lest there be some who suspect that I am really presenting a slightly different version of the Rogers and McKim hypothesis, it is important to clarify the difference between their position and the position advocated in this chapter ... I am arguing for a high view of Scripture, based on a verbal spiration of the text but one which accepts that God chose to use human authors, with all the implications of that decision. In other words, I am arguing that Scripture is as God intended it to be, in his gracious providential overruling, but reject the impication that thereby the autographia must be inerrant, p. 124.

McGowan is forced to come to this decision because: 1) There is no clear teaching in Scripture that advocates the modern view of inerrancy, and, 2) There is no satisfactory argument from "good and necessary consequence" which teaches inerrancy. The idea of inerrancy neglects the human element in the Scriptures.

On the same page McGowan talks of the Rogers/McKim and Woodbridge debate:


The Holy Spirit can use the errors of the human authors of Scripture for His Own Purpose. Thus, when Matthew writes down the errors of Satan - he does so under the approbation of the Spirit of God. The error is recorded and is a part of Scripture because God has a purpose in presenting it.

What is the consequence of saying that the words of Satan are not a part of Scripture? Can we then edit out these words and have a complete teaching from Christ?

If the words of Satan are what Satan said, then their presence in the autographs is not an "error in the autographs". To argue that such IS an example of "errors in the autoraphs", it seems to me, a complete misunderstanding of inerrancy.



On what basis do you say that?

The authentic copies of these autographs (as spoken of in the WCF 1:8) are also free from copy errors, and, because they contain every jot and tittle of the autographs, are just as inspired as the autographs. Consequently, these copies have the authority of the autographs and are the rule and touchstone concerning all controversies of religion.

And why would this be a problem?

It is the second principle that I think McGowan is addressing:

That God allowed errors into the autographs for the accomplishment of His Own Special Purpose. Inerrantists need to explain the errors away because they have brought into the arguments of the 19th Century rationalists. They explain these errors away either as, 1) The errors are not a part of Scripture, 2) They use a bizarre theological or textual juggling to prove that they are not errors, or, 3) Finally, they claim that there are no errors in the autographs, but these are simply copy errors accumulated over the centuries. I am sure there are other points as well - these are the ones that I am familiar with at this juncture.

I think that McGowan is touching upon something that is very important in the Reformed understanding of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, but is seriously lacking in the idea of inerrancy. The inerrantists are so fanatical about defending the Spirit-Inspired Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16), that they forget that "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," (2 Pt 1:21), and, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son," (Heb 1:1-2). They miss the human element in Scripture - especially regarding the inspired errors in the autographs.

So let me be very plain, because your excess verbiage eludes interpretation.

Do you intend to say that some of the time when God "spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets" the prophets messed up what was to be said? That is, are there mistakes in Scripture - things that the human authors wrote, but which are incorrect - where, because of their humanness, the authors messed up the intended revelation of truth? That is - an example of this might be that instead of fish WITH scales and fins being unclean, fish WITHOUT scales and fins are in fact unclean. Is this kind of error in the autographs because of the humanness of their authors? If you're continually going back to "the humanness of the authors" isn't this your main point - that such errors exist (for the purpose of the Holy Spirit, as you say)?

Or, do you merely mean that there are things recorded that are untrue? (e.g. the words of Satan in Genesis 3, "you will not surely die") These NO inerrantist would deny.

Thank you, Todd, for that kindly reply.

I fail to see how the words of Satan in Matthew 4:6 can be considered anything but wrong. I know that you are not suggesting that Satan is teaching orthodoxy in that passage. But if such is problematic for you, then consider Paul's "senior moment" in 1 Cor 1:14-16.

If the Scriptures are promoting an "inerrantist" view of itself, then Paul would have been able to list all of those of whom he baptized right away. Instead he says:

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius:

He then continues his remonstration of the Corinthians in verse 15. Then in verse 16 he says:

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

This section of Scripture is problematic for those who hold to "inerrancy." I believe that the Holy Spirit is showing us the human element in Scripture. Paul's "senior moment" or "error" if you wish is controlled by the Spirit of God for His Own Purposes.

Or, consider this "error": What did Jesus really say?

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Or,

Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Did Jesus use the term "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven"? One of these has to be an "error." (I put the word "error" in quotes because, according to the rationalistic position of the inerrantists these passages become problematic.)

If you consider, though, that the Holy Spirit is using the human personality of the writers in the above examples, then their "errors" can be accounted for in a reasonable fashion. From a rationalistic and scientifically technical perspective the above mentioned incidents are "errors" - including the "error" of Satan.

I have been up all night - so it is to bed I now go - good night, and,

Blessings!

-Rob

 

[toddpedlar]

So let me be very plain, because your excess verbiage eludes interpretation.

Do you intend to say that some of the time when God "spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets" the prophets messed up what was to be said? That is, are there mistakes in Scripture - things that the human authors wrote, but which are incorrect - where, because of their humanness, the authors messed up the intended revelation of truth? That is - an example of this might be that instead of fish WITH scales and fins being unclean, fish WITHOUT scales and fins are in fact unclean. Is this kind of error in the autographs because of the humanness of their authors? If you're continually going back to "the humanness of the authors" isn't this your main point - that such errors exist (for the purpose of the Holy Spirit, as you say)?

Or, do you merely mean that there are things recorded that are untrue? (e.g. the words of Satan in Genesis 3, "you will not surely die") These NO inerrantist would deny.

Thank you, Todd, for that kindly reply.

You're welcome... I hope you'll answer the questions I asked that you didn't answer yet. Thanks...

I fail to see how the words of Satan in Matthew 4:6 can be considered anything but wrong. I know that you are not suggesting that Satan is teaching orthodoxy in that passage.

I don't see how this can be construed as "an error in the autographs" since Satan's words are faithfully represented, though they be lies. They are NOT errors. To posit this as an "error" is, as I've already said, a complete misunderstanding of the doctrine of inerrancy. Your examples of Paul in 1 Corinthians (Are you serious with that one? You really think that has anything to say contra inerrancy?)

Or, consider this "error": What did Jesus really say?

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Or,

Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Did Jesus use the term "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven"? One of these has to be an "error." (I put the word "error" in quotes because, according to the rationalistic position of the inerrantists these passages become problematic.)

Why must we assume that Matthew and Mark are reporting exactly the same instance of speech? Do you think there was only one time at which Christ spoke before choosing Simon? Why do you assume these are direct quotations a la "Peter said 'Christ died and rose again on the third day'" as opposed to "Peter said Christ died and rose again on the third day", a distinction not made in the autographs (or I believe in Koine).

If you think these are "errors" that give problems for those who hold to inerrancy, it's clear you don't understand the doctrine, but have adopted some kind of caricature of the doctrine of inerrancy with which modern liberal scholars tar and feather people who hold to it.

I look forward to hearing your response to the questions I asked earlier, because they get at what you really believe vis a vis inerrancy (the real doctrine thereof, not the liberal scholars' caricature of it).

 

[Wayne]

Rob:

You have stated that you are a student at RPTS. I have to ask then, is what you've been relating here on the Puritan Board consistent with what you have been taught there in class? I highly doubt it, but have to ask.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Some helpful reviews of McGowan's book:

Is Inerrancy Unbiblical, Rationalistic and Presumptuous? A critique of A.T.B. McGowan's proposal for evangelicals to reject inerrancy - Reformation21

http://www.knoxpcea.org.au/index.ph...of-scripture-creed-and-confessions&Itemid=119

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Andrew McGowan, The Divine Spiration of Scripture (Nottingham: Apollos (IVP), 2007)

 

[TimV]

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Or,

Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Did Jesus use the term "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven"? One of these has to be an "error." (I put the word "error" in quotes because, according to the rationalistic position of the inerrantists these passages become problematic.)

It's like the different inscriptions on the cross. The gospels don't always report a whole sermon or the whole of a specific dialogue. They were both said and just parts were recorded in different places.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here is Gill on Matthew 4:6.

Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, if thou be the Son of God,.... He addresses him after the same manner as before; if, or seeing,

thou art the Son of God, show thyself to be so; give proof of thy sonship before all the priests which are in and about the temple, and before all the inhabitants of Jerusalem;

cast thyself down that is, from the pinnacle of the temple: for since thou art the Son of God, no hurt will come to thee; thou wilt be in the utmost safety; and this will at once be a full demonstration to all the people, that thou art the Son of God: for hither Satan brought him, hoping to have got an advantage of him publicly; otherwise, had his view only been to have got him to cast himself down from any place of eminence, and so to have destroyed himself, he might have set him upon any other precipice; but he chose to have it done in the sight of the people, and in the holy city, and holy place. Let it be observed, that Satan did not offer to cast him down himself; for this was not in his power, nor within his permission, which reached only to tempt; and besides, would not have answered his end; for that would have been his own sin, and not Christ's: accordingly, we may observe, that when he seeks the lives of men, he does not attempt to destroy them himself, but always puts them upon doing it. To proceed, Satan not only argues from his divine power, as the Son of God, that he would be safe in casting himself down; but observing the advantageous use Christ made of the scriptures, transforms himself into an angel of light, and cites scripture too, to encourage him to this action; assuring him of the protection of angels. The passage cited is Psa_91:11 which expresses God's tender care and concern for his people, in charging the angels with the guardianship and preservation of them, in all their ways, that they might be secured from sin and danger. It does not appear that Satan was wrong in the application of this passage to Christ; for since it respects all the righteous in general, why not Christ as man? the head, as well as the members? And certain it is, that angels had the charge of him, did watch over him, and were a guard about him; the angels of God ascended, and descended on him; they were employed in preserving him from Herod's malice in his infancy; they ministered to him here in the wilderness, and attended him in his agony in the garden: but what Satan failed in, and that wilfully, and wickedly, was, in omitting that part of it,

to keep thee in all thy ways; which he saw was contrary to his purpose, and would have spoiled his design at once; and also in urging this passage, which only regards godly persons, in the way of their duty, to countenance actions which are out of the way of a man's calling, or which he is not called unto; and which are contrary to religion, and a tempting God. Satan before tempted Christ to distrust the providence of God, and now he tempts him to presume upon it: in like manner he deals with men, when he argues from the doctrines of predestination and providence to the disuse of means, for their good, either for this life, or that which is to come; and if he tempted the Son of God to destroy himself, it is no wonder that the saints should be sometimes harassed with this temptation.

Satan is a distorter of truth. I may not be understanding your point Rob. But I see no problem for the person who holds to innerrancy here. Truth can be spoken in a way that can make it a temptation. Especially partial truth. Notice Satan didn't quote the entire passage.

And the 1 Corinthians 1:16 passage concerning Stephanus is mute in my opinion. Stephanus is not originally from Corinth so Paul adds him to the list as a secondary issue. Stephanus is originally from Achaia. 1 Corinthians 16:15. So Stephanus isn't originally one of the Corinthians.

BTW, who is denying the human element in scripture in the camp that believes in innerrancy?

And who is denying that the Spirit of God can't bare men along and use general synonymous language to teach truth? Why can't Jesus have said both the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God? I am not so sure you are understanding innerrancy? Is it possible that you are developing too wooden of an attitude in defining things?

BTW, I believe you are on dangerous ground. I have seen many in my 28 years start on this path you are on who swerve off into all sorts of bad doctrine. That is my experience. I pray it isn't so with you.

Addition to original post because this was brought to my attention....

Jesus in Matthew 19:23,24 used the terms God and Heaven synonomously and together even.

(Mat 19:23) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

(Mat 19:24) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[P.F.]

A couple points:

1) Rob: you don't seem to understand what the doctrine of inerrancy claims. One helpful place for you to start is by reviewing the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy: THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

2) This thread was really aimed at inerrancy in historical theology, not a general defense of inerrancy. So far we have seen that Augustine and Theodoret held to a view of inerrancy. We also learned in the previous thread that the same can be found in Gregory of Nazianzen (Oration 2, Section 105):

I remembered the days of old, and, recurring to one of the ancient histories, drew counsel for myself therefrom as to my present conduct; for let us not suppose these events to have been recorded without a purpose, nor that they are a mere assemblage of words and deeds gathered together for the pastime of those who listen to them, as a kind of bait for the ears, for the sole purpose of giving pleasure. Let us leave such jesting to the legends and the Greeks, who think but little of the truth, and enchant ear and mind by the charm of their fictions and the daintiness of their style.

We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation.

There are many more here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/innerancy-church-fathers-24121/

And, additionally, folks have pointed out some resources from Muller and Gaffin.

Perhaps it would make sense for me to try to locate statements about inerrancy from other specific Reformers besides Whitaker.

 

[Peairtach]

Human beings are perfectly able to speak without error. Is everything that comes out of our mouths false?

So the humanity of the Bible is not impaired because God ensured it was without error.

The humanity of the Bible is in fact enhanced, because it is like the unfallen humanity of Adam before the Fall or like that of Christ.

Remember that all the words of Scripture - including the OT - come through our Prophet Christ.

Are the errantists saying that Christ was capable of speaking error and thus making Him a sinner ?

I agree with Adam, Rob, that some of your points are childish. Because e.g. Eve misquotes God in Genesis 3:3, and Satan contradicts God in 3:4, and God's Word accurately records that, does that mean the Bible is full of error?

To ask the Q is to answer it. If God's Word had recorded that Eve had not misquoted God, and that Satan had agreed with God, would you then say it was not in error at this point?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This thread is going to take a break. Rob doesn't need everyone to gang up on him. He needs to respond to Todd's questions.