April 24, 2008
wts documents released
Posted by aboulet under Announcements/Events, Biblical Theology, Confessional, Education, Westminster Convo | Tags: Christianity, Peter Enns, Religion, Westminster Theological Seminary |The documents that were prepared by the Historical and Theological Field Committee against Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation as well as the response to their report by the Hermeneutics Field Committee (in favor of Enns) were handed out to interested students yesterday. Today, they have been released on Westminster’s website.
Along with these reports are also the Edgar-Kelly Motion, the Faculty Minority Report, and an essay by Dr. Peter Lillback.
These documents are extremely enlightening. We’ll be sure to weigh in on them in the near future.
April 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm
It’s surprising to me that the HTFC response seems unwilling to look at how exegesis and Systematic Theology are actually done (as opposed to how we think they should be done). We almost get the impression that they think we can, when confronted with various manuscripts, find the words of Scripture because they will somehow affirm themselves. It should be obvious that no one does textual criticism this way.
April 25, 2008 at 9:12 am
Craig V.,
I agree. The HTFC paper leaves much to be desired. Thankfully the HFC paper engages it well. We hope to commence some discussion and/or posts on these documents soon.
April 25, 2008 at 10:24 am
[...] about it . . . all 146 pages of the Westminster documents are available in PDF here (Thanks: Conn-versation; Between Two Worlds; Art Boulet, where comments are [...]
April 28, 2008 at 6:58 am
Guys, I hate to break the news to you, but the final results are in. Game over.
April 28, 2008 at 10:32 am
For some reason I don’t believe either of your points Johnson.
1) You did not “hate” to write what you wrote.
2) Enns has not been terminated.
April 28, 2008 at 1:03 pm
GLW Johnson,
Are you arguing that once the results are in there’s no more need to look at the issues? Using this logic it would seem to me that we’d have to concede that the whole authority of Scripture debate was settled in the 1930s (and not in favor of inerrancy).
April 28, 2008 at 3:24 pm
[...] are aware, the faculty and administration of Westminster Theological Seminary recently released (see post below) several documents pertaining to the current situation at [...]
April 28, 2008 at 6:03 pm
CV
Is that your personal opinion-the debate over inerrancy was settled negatively in the 1930’s? By the way, who settled it and how did they convince you that it was settled?
April 28, 2008 at 6:43 pm
GLW Johnson,
I’m pointing out a flaw in what I take to be your logic. Of course, it’s always possible I have missed your point. You’ve announced that the game is over which seems to mean you don’t see any need for discussion since the results are in. Using that same argument we might conclude that the reorganization of Princeton settled the controversies behind those changes. I find that to be a pretty bad argument.
April 28, 2008 at 6:50 pm
CV
You didn’t answer the question. You said that the issue was ’settled’ in the 30’s. How was it settled by who settled it-in your opinion.I would really like to know.
April 28, 2008 at 7:26 pm
GLW Johnson,
I said “Using this logic it would seem to me that we’d have to concede that the whole authority of Scripture debate was settled”. My recommendation is that we don’t use “this logic” because it would lead us to wrongly think that all sorts of things were settled which aren’t.
What I think about inerrancy is not impacted by the reorganization of the Princeton faculty. All of my heroes in that controversy were on the losing side.
This isn’t a game for me. I’m looking forward to a serious and God honoring discussion.
April 28, 2008 at 9:04 pm
CV
I am as well, but please explain what you meant by the debate was ’settled’ in the 30’s- with inerrancy coming out on the short end of the stick. Specifically, how was it settled and who settled it?
April 28, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I think its pretty easy to see what he means. The majority who rejected inerrancy when Machen & company left Princeton & when Machen was tossed out seemed to be on the “winning” side. They had control of Princton & the PCUSA. machen was out. Case settled. But Machen & company did not accept that settlement & continued to discuss the issue.
You seem to be saying the issue is settled & no need for further discussion b/e Enns is out. Seems fairly easy to understand.
April 29, 2008 at 11:49 am
Thanks R Glenn, that’s exactly what I meant.
April 29, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I thought you were quite clear.
April 30, 2008 at 8:10 am
RG
Well, evidently Carlos understood it the same way I did-althought not for the same reason- Craig will note that on another thread this popped up and CV added that the 70’s confirmed that what was settled in the 30’s was buried in the 70’s. What do you supposed happened in that decade, besides the change in fashionable bellbottoms, that is linked to the 30’s?
April 30, 2008 at 11:33 am
GLW Johnson,
You entered this thread with a rather unhelpful comment. Aboulet pointed out that your comment was both disingenuous and inaccurate. I added that it embodied a rather embarrassing logic for those of us who stand in the tradition of Machen. So your comment has been accused of being dishonest, inaccurate and muddled. You have made no attempt to defend your comment (no doubt a wise move), but have chosen instead to try to find some hidden liberalism in my response.
I’m more than willing to give you every benefit of the doubt for three reasons. 1.)You are a brother in Christ. 2.) My copy and paste error put my response to you in a thread where it didn’t belong and this may have made it impossible to understand. 3.) I have a friend whose opinions I respect, who was a member of your congregation and who holds you in high regard. In comment #12 on this thread you have indicated, unless I’ve misunderstood you, that you, like me, desire a serious and God honoring discussion. If that’s so, then I think it might be time for you to show interest in real discussion (either defending or distancing yourself from your initial comment) rather than a drive by shooting.
April 30, 2008 at 1:19 pm
CV
I posted a valid observation in the wake of the recent actions by the BOT at WTS and followed it by a request for clarification regarding your reference to the 30’s and wondered outloud why it appears that this site has two main objectives: Defend Peter Enns and raise questions about the validity and centrality of inerrancy. CB has completely dismissed the doctrine and you are vague.By the way are you a grad or a student at WTS?
April 30, 2008 at 1:21 pm
GLW:
You might want to type full names instead of CV and CB. That’s confusing people, plus, you yourself slipped up typing in the wrong initials at the wrong time. On top of that, somehow the threads got confused.
Craig V. doesn’t think the 1930s settled anything. I know that from talking to him before on this site; he’s still into inerrancy and trying to hash the whole thing out for himself. But somehow this and another thread got intertwined and the conversation became unintelligible (my attempt to help sort things out included).
GLW, you can address me as you please when you comment and make whatever insinuations you want. I don’t care if I’m called a liberal from the 30s, an agnostic from the 70s, or an unbeliever from 2008–that’s all fine and well. But these other guys here are in real sympathy with Enns (that doesn’t mean, of course, that they are SPEAKING for Enns) and are taking this thing with Enns very seriously, some are taking it personally. Some of these guys truly believe they (and Enns) are expressing a certain biblical-theological trajectory that can claim to boast an Old Princeton-WTS continuity. You may disagree, probably mightily, but they are trying best they can to get a good grasp of what’s happening at WTS and why they are not being heard, why the issues that they want to talk about are not being talked about. You might see them as liberals, but they certainly don’t see themselves that way. They’re not going to be too interested in talking with you if you keep talking to them as if they are card-carrying liberals without even giving them a hearing first. You ARE interested in talking, aren’t you?
April 30, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Carlos
I have not called you or anyone else on this site a liberal . I’ll say again, this site appears devoted to defending Enns and casting doubt on the doctrine of inerrancy- your frequent appearance testifies to that. I then asked why is seems so inappropriate to connect the dots and everyone defense shields go up.On top of that, you never did spell out what you meant by the relationship the 30’s had to the 70’s.
April 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Craig
I’ve been pondering your explanation about how the issue of inerrancy was ’settled’with inerrancy taking it on the chin by Machen leaving Princeton to found WTS. Could you elaborate a little as to why you think that was the case?
April 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm
GLW:
I’m very much on board with taking a critical stance toward inerrancy and coming up with some other metaphor for scripture’s authority. The Enns thing is not as close to home for me. I think Enns should be allowed to keep teaching, but that’s not a burning issue for me. Of course, I’m not likely an accurate gauge for what the people who host this site would say. They should be the ones to explain to you what they want their site to accomplish.
I don’t think I understand this whole thing about the 30s and 70s but I’ll try to give a brief response to your connecting the dots remark. I’ve read Briggs’ inaugural address, and I think he’s more right on the authority of scripture than wrong. To me, he is representative of a conservative critical spirit with regard to inerrancy that comes up in the 20s-30s, again in the 70s, and now. I think his tempered critical stance was picked up again in the 70s by, among other writers, Dewey Beegle’s Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility, Pinnock’s Scripture Principle, and Stephen Davis’ Debate about the Bible. Most recently Kenton Sparks’ book, along with some of the other books you’ll be writing about in your article, has taken up the mantle. Evangelicalism should fess up to the critical scholars and give them an apology for acting as if the critical scholarship they produced in biblical studies over the last hundred years or so were the erroneous conclusions of unbelieving minds, conclusions that only apostates would accept. They’re not. The Bible critics were right. Now a few generations later some evangelicals are ready to embrace them.
In the 30s, in the 70s, and now, new generations of scholars arise and are ready to admit what they have found in biblical studies and are ready to incorporate those findings into their understanding of the faith. If their understanding of the faith does not accomodate these findings, then the faith must be adapted, which is what each generation must wrestle with: precisely how this might be done.
Now if Briggs was a heretic in some matter of doctrine I am not suggesting that all the others that I connect him are also. In my mind, Briggs’ authentic, critical stance against inerrancy was culturally significant and I see a way to connnect some dots whenever that same authentic, critical stance manifests itself during the course of 20th century theological disputes. But those to whom I connect these dots may not appreciate this suggestion. I understand Briggs got in trouble for a bunch of things, not just inerrrancy, but it’s only inerrancy that I’m interested in. I think it’s caused a lot of damage.
April 30, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Carlos
Have you read my chapter in the book I edited for P&R last Spring on Warfield?
May 1, 2008 at 8:43 am
To All concerned
I purposely waited to see if there would be a stiff response to Carlos’ most recent rabbit punch to the Westminster tradition and that institution’s determined intention to carry on the Old Princeton legacy as personified by BB Warfield.I am diappointed by the silence. Carlos had already stated that he thinks WTS should never had been founded in the first place. Now he declares his preference for C.A. Briggs over Warfield, and just like his new found hero, says that the doctrine of inerrancy has done untold damage. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I knew Harvey Conn, the individual that is the inspiration for this blog. He was still active during my time at WTS. He was a common sight back then in his bib overalls. I chatted with him often, I can only imagine how he would respond to Carlos. I have a much better take on how Van Til would have responded-is the image of a wood shed pictursque enough?
May 1, 2008 at 1:11 pm
GLW:
I haven’t read your article. Maybe over the summer I can track it down.
I only have a minute here, but I am wondering about your very last comment. Sounds kind of like Goliath taunting the Israelites. Are you trying to scare participants into not associating with me on this post? What kind of culture are you trying setting out to breed?
But come to think of it, fundamentalism does depend on fear tactics to keep it’s adherents in line. I’m not afraid to talk with you GLW or with the connversationalists, honestly and openly, as I hope you know by now. I am under no peer pressure to pass your conservative, WTS, ecclesial/cultural tests.
So are you saying that the hosts should not be posting my comments? Are you saying I am not welcome, GLW, on this site, or at least, that I should not be welcome on this site? Are you looking for someone (else) to take issue with my remarks besides you? I’m having trouble reading between the lines of what you wrote. As always, I want to read you as charitably as I can.
May 1, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Carlos
I am wondering, given your rather unflattering assessment of WTS founding and you equally disturbing preference for Briggs over Warfield, why a blog named after Harvey Conn isn’t expressing some small degree of consternation with you.As I said, I think Harvey would look at you with some concern and Van Til , who took a very dim view of theological bumkinism, would be a bit more forceful with you. Of course the very real possibility exist that they agree with you… which is even more alarming.
May 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm
GLW: All the members of Connversation have thought through which comments we would allow and which comments we would screen. Because we want this to be a place where people can be connversant, we decided that unless the comment was spam or the content of a comment was out of bounds (personal attack, off color language, libel, etc.), then we would let it stand.
It should also be noted the members of Connversation are either full time students who are coming up on finals week or employed full time. We don’t have time to enter into every connversation that happens on this cite, although we do make our best effort.
Besides all of this, it seems that you are the only one who is unclear as to what CV was saying. What he stated was pretty clear, but let me attempt to clarify it for you again:
When Machen founded WTS, the issues surrounding his leaving Princeton were not settled. They continued to be debated, written about, and discussed for decades.
In the same way, Enns suspension does not end (or, in your terms, make it “game over” ) the conversation surrounding the issues at hand.
It was a fairly simple statement.
As for Briggs vs. Warfield, that is a different topic and one that was not original to the comments until you showed up with your first, rather rude, comment.
There are areas where I agree with Briggs over Warfield and others where I, personally, do not. There needs to be clarification over which issues we are talking about before a fruitful connversation can occur.
May 1, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Actually, I thought I have displayed more thana little restaint with Carlos. He has made numerous condescending and disdainful remarks about Warfield and Machen. He has charged the founders of WTS with negligence and dereliction of duty. They are guilty, in his all-knowning opinion, of deliberately fostering on the Church a doctrine that is positively harmful. Pardon me if I take offense but Carlos is not only a personal discomfort to me, he is an embarrassment my alma mater and to the men, like Harvey Conn, who labored there.
May 1, 2008 at 3:46 pm
aboulet
I would be interested to know what areas do you side with Briggs over Warfield? As for my ‘rude’ opening comment- I made a very matter of fact observation. You might not like it, but that will not change the reality of what I pointed out.Which brings me back to an earlier observation- is this site deliberately suggesting that the doctrine of inerrancy as stated by Warfield and defended by Machen & Co. at WTS something you find discomforting? It certainly appears that way to me.
May 1, 2008 at 4:44 pm
aboulet
Just to give you a heads up- I have read most of Briggs’ published works, his commentary on Psalms in the old ICC being the exception- as well as the majority of his periodical articles. Briggs, in addition to his overt rejection of the Old Princeton formulation of inerrancy, also dismissed the doctrines of sola fide, penal substitution and the Reformers’ doctrine of the bondage of the will. In other words, Briggs was not remotely ‘Reformed’.I documented this in my chapter in the book I edited on Warfield that P&R published last Spring.
May 1, 2008 at 5:04 pm
GLW:
I appreciate your restraint. I won’t apologize for embarrassing you or even for being a “theological bumpkin.” I could care less if van Til would be patting me on the back right now or not. I am pointing to Briggs in an attempt to answer your question from before. I am pointing to his willingness to criticize inerrancy. That’s the only aspect of Briggs I am pointing to. I prefer that aspect of Briggs over against a ready willingness to defend the Bible against every charge of error.
As far as WTS, I think in hindsight it would not be unreasonable for certain people to begin wondering if forming WTS was a mistake. That’s not an all-knowing pronouncement: it’s a mere articulation of what I think on the matter and what I would be thinking myself either if I were on Princeton’s faculty then or on WTS faculty now. I’m not trying to be condescending, GLW, but I think my vantage is taken as so contrary to yours that what I say will rub you the wrong way no matter how I word it.
May 1, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Carlos
Why are you so vociferous in your opposition to the Old Princeton/Westminster doctrine of inerrancy? You are every bit as driven in your irksome and tedious views as Briggs. I say this with as much candidness as possible-something other than exegetical and theological reflection is at work here. I read your book from cover to cover-you don’t even begin to interact with the substance of Warfield’s total analysis. You quote selectively and often out of context. Perhaps you ought to delve into Van Til.Your presuppositions are the driving force behind your hostility to inerrancy. I will flesh this out more completely in my article that I referenced earlier. As a WTS grad, you should give a hoot about what VanTil had to say. I dearly hope that your present mindset is not traceable to your time at WTS.
May 1, 2008 at 6:47 pm
GLW:
It’s not only the Old Princeton/WTS inerrancy that has become the subject of my book(s) [more on the way]. It’s the Geisler-ETS inerrancy that I was taught initially that proved to me to be such a spiritual and existential straitjacket. The way Geisler ties Christianity to inerrancy in an all-or-nothing way I found to be really harmful to me and, if I might add, to some fellow students. I tried hard to keep believing inerrancy by harmonizing scriptures and insisting that entire scholarly disciplines were wrong because they were unbelieving at their cores, but in the end (it took ten years of wresltling with this stuff!) I found it a hopeless cause to keep trying to salvage inerrancy because even in my own work, the only thing holding inerrancy together was me. You mention presuppositions: I was willing inerrancy into existence, I was forcing the doctrine. If I’m the only thing holding inerrancy together, why not try to hold together a different version of biblical authority, one that is more helpful for doing scholarship and carrying out a life of faith.
But the kicker is, GLW, that Christianity can still exist without inerrancy. How many young conservatives are ever told this? I think that can be interpreted as deception, that some young believers are not told that they can still, if it should ever come down to it, keep faith as a non-inerrantist if they feel compelled to do so. This “your either in or out” and “inerrancy is the only way to be a true Christian” culture is something that I think enslaves spirits in ways that border on abusive. I myself think that things can be taught differently. So I am trying to work toward that end.
To clarify: it’s not just the Presbyterian heritage from Westminster Seminary that I take issue with, but the fundamentalist mindset en toto, “The Bible has all the answers” attitude that smothered me. It has drowned out all the denominational differences and disagreements and caused me to focus more on religious cultures and pscyhological mindsets.
I trusted that the Bible was the word of God because that was what I was taught by the leaders who I respected. I believed on faith that every single thing that the Bible said was absolutely true and that anyone who did not believe this was not really a Christian. When I read non-inerrantist writers, I just figured they had been taken over by the modern spirit. But then I began finding that through my own inquiries into biblical studies that I could no longer hold onto inerrancy. That meant to me that I could no longer be Christian. So I tried to give up the faith, but I saw that I was still very much Christian, retaining many of the core beliefs, just not inerrancy. I was unable to deny central tenets of the faith that I professed. What a lousy job some of these fundamentalist, inerrantist, inerrancy or bust writers are doing with the spiritual formation of the younger ones in the faith! Inerrancy might be critical to faith from their vantage, but it seems totally optional.
I’ve had enough of van Til during my time at WTS. Presuppositions can make one more self-conscious, but I don’t think presuppositions tell the whole story, GLW. Sometimes evidence can trump presuppositions as well as vice versa. Yes, WTS had an effect on me, but my mindset is not traceable to my time there. That said, my journey into progressive evangelicalism was most certainly helped along by observing how the theological and apologetic classes I took there were not at all informed by what was going on in biblical studies or in the other secular disciplines. In fact, they seemed to me to care very little about what was going on outside of theology proper. To wit, they called every discipline theology!
Listen, these last few days, commenting here has taken up a lot of my time and I’ve fallen behind on my work again. I almost missed a short paper I had to give at the Ancient Philosophy Society last time I talked with you and others elsewhere. So I’m going to take a break for a bit to make sure I get done what I need to.
Grace and peace, GLW.
May 1, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Carlos
I mean you no personal animosity, but your take on inerrancy is very distorted, to equate Geisler’s formulation of inerrancy with that of Warfield is simply inexcusable. Please read Moises Silva’s chapter in the previously mentioned book on Warfield that I edited-in fact read the whole book! Why the hostility towards VanTil for pete’s sake ( pardon the pun)? Briggs, despite his awry theology ,is your hero because he opposed inerrancy? Do you celebrate the Socinians as well? Where are the people responsible for this blog? Are you too on Carlos side on this issue?!
May 2, 2008 at 4:52 pm
c bovell
I appreciate and admire your patience and honesty. I was moved by your brief history. I’ve seen the abuse you describe and know it does damage. There’s something about our reformed tradition that seems to lead to a pride and arrogance that is clearly condemned by our Lord. At best it’s unbecoming. At worst it does great harm.
One caution I would give (though it’s probably not a caution you really need). The fact that a doctrine like inerrancy is misused or misapplied doesn’t mean it’s not important or not true. When I was in college I decided to never read Heidegger. I had learned that he was a Nazi sympathizer and I reasoned that if all his philosophical insight was not enough to enable him to stand against Nazism, then it wasn’t worth much. The other day, I had a very sobering realization. Almost none of the churches in Germany took a stand against Hitler. If I was as hard on us as I am on Heidegger I might walk by the gospel of God which is the power of salvation. I still haven’t started reading Heidegger (it’s a pretty deeply held prejudice), but I’m willing to acknowledge that his insights might be of great value even if he didn’t use them very well in his life.
May 3, 2008 at 5:44 am
Tell me fellows, how is Carlos’ tirades against what he calls the harmful and spiritually damaging effects of inerrancy any more absurd than Brian McLaren’s recent rant at Willow Creek where he declared that the traditional orthodox understanding of the biblical doctrines of penal substitution, hell and the Second Coming all lead to violence and oppression?
May 3, 2008 at 5:47 am
correction: that should be ” any less absurd”.
May 3, 2008 at 6:19 am
Just so we’re clear: you are equating questioning modern formulations of inerrancy with questioning the Second Coming, penal substitution, and hell?
I’d go out on a limb and say that is what is absurd.
May 3, 2008 at 6:37 am
“modern formulation” ? The doctrine of inerrancy as articulated by Warfield ,as he himself demonstrated, the Bible is the Word of God and does not err-was the doctrine espoused by the Church down through the centuries. On this issue both Protestants like Warfield and Roman Catholics agreed as demonstrated by the cyclical letter ‘Providentissimus Deus’ of Pope Leo XIII in 1893 that dogmatized the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy ( I doubt very seriously that the Vatican was reading Warfield at this time!).
May 3, 2008 at 6:53 am
In reading the recently released HFC precis one can not help but notice that all the members of Biblical Studies dept at WTS have no hesitation in strongly affirming the doctrine of inerrancy- so why does this site ‘appear’ to have deep-seated reservations about inerrancy and continue to encourage Carlos when he vents all the devestation inerrancy has caused? One would think that a site that is devoted to defending Peter Enns wouldn’t at the same time wish to leave the impression that inerrancy is a bad thing.
May 3, 2008 at 3:30 pm
GLW: I’d love to see some kind of statement, creed, or formulation from before the Enlightenment (hence “modern”
which mirrors our formulations today. If you can provide one, it would be helpful.
Also, we are not arguing against inerrancy, just like Pete and the HFC aren’t. There is a difference between questioning and wanting a more robust defition and arguing against something. I am for the former, as I know others on this site are as well.
May 4, 2008 at 6:49 am
AB
Since you are a student at WTS I am very sure that Carl Trueman or Lane Tipton could help you out on the very ancient roots of inerrancy.
May 4, 2008 at 8:44 am
GLW: I have little doubt that there are ancient roots to inerrancy. What I am doubting is that ancient formulations of inerrancy, which you have not provided for us, are very similar to modern formulations. I’d go ask Dr. Tipton or Dr. Trueman, but they aren’t the ones making the claim. You are. So I think you should be able to back it up with some evidence instead of passing it off to someone else.
May 4, 2008 at 9:17 am
I continue to be surprised that WTS students are making these kind of statements about inerrancy. Have you taken time to read ANY of Warfield? Carlos read very little and to no effect and you appear as equally jaded in your take on the subject. Are you under care of either the OPC or PCA ?
May 4, 2008 at 9:35 am
GLW: Saying what things about inerrancy? Saying that we want a robust view of inerrancy that deals with the challenges of critical scholarship? If that is out of line with being a WTS student then I am completely lost as to what it means to be a student here.
This might be tough for you to handle, but I have read a lot of Warfield and he doesn’t answer all my questions. I got his collected writings for my 20th birthday and read right through them. Am I indebted to him for gia work? Absolutely (and I’m sure other member of this sight would say so as well). Are there still issues that need to be explored even after Warfield? Absolutely. I’m pretty sure he would encourage students to continue to wrestle with the challenges of modern scholarship, just like he did, with a desire to hold onto a high view of Scripture, which is what I desire.
Again, I am not arguing for errancy or against Warfield. I am argung that we need a more robust view of inerrancy in light of problem created by critical scholarship. I think the church needs us to wrestle with these questions.
May 4, 2008 at 9:48 am
AB
‘Robust view of inerrancy’? Is that one that would be able to accomodate the concept of inspired ‘inerrant’ myths? So, you have read through all of the 10 volumes of BBW but you think his articulation of inerrancy was rooted in the Enlightment and is entirely a ‘modern formulation’? Sorry, I am not buying any of it. I have better things to do than play swat the mole on this blog. Bye.
May 4, 2008 at 10:03 am
You don’t have to buy it because I’m not selling it. It’s a flat our fact. I’m sorry that you think BBW should answer all our questions. But he doesn’t.
Wouldn’t swatting a mole mean that you provide evidence for your statements instead of constantly shifting the conversation to where you are asking questions instead of answering the ones you were asked?
I have answered your questions, all without calling you a mole. I would appreciate the same in response.
May 4, 2008 at 10:22 am
AB
It’s a figure of speech -kinda like a metaphor but more folksy -Gee whiz.Let me put this way-you don’t appear to have digested what you read in Warfield otherwise you would say the things you have. Go ahead and have the last word. I’m out of here.
May 4, 2008 at 10:26 am
I’m sympathetic to GL’s concern here, though from the opposite angle. Though I think the “New WTS” is self-consciously trying to redefine innerrancy–that is, it recognizes what Warfield et al says, agrees at points and disagrees at others, and tries to correct where they think Warfield can be improved. It’s not trying to rewrite the past, or claim that it is what the past always been, though it does claim to take its cue from the past.
Personally I don’t see how any sensible definition of the word “inerrant” that doesn’t almost completely empty the word of its usual meaning (i.e. entirely free of error) can be applied to the Bible, particularly in view of the issues we’re talking about (myth, etc.). Even–as I often joke–a version that says God inerrantly inspired the text, even all the errors in it, cannot evade the problem: it still poses the question of the difference between the Bible and God’s attendant providence in the writing of a newspaper article. If we’re going to insist that the issues are real, we need to chuck the word. Circumscribing a definition–or theology–can only make so much progress before it starts to actually restrict it. We’re at that point.
Also, IMO “robust” is the wrong word to describe a doctrine (I think it’s Westminsterese). We evaluate doctrines on the basis of whether they’re right or not, not how “strong” they are. Robust is for pasta sauce.
May 6, 2008 at 6:59 pm
JD:
Not all people agree that the word “inerrancy” should be given up. A number of people reckon that the term has been hijacked and that some have taken inerrancy in a most unhelpful and more strict direction: e.g., that it should mean (and that it has, of course, “always” meant) no error of any kind in any thing that scripture says.
My impression from interacting with various scholars is that several of them are convinced that this was not always what the Reformed tradition meant by inerrancy. There have been other options, good, orthodox formulations that were then in circulation, something, for example, more like: the Bible does not err in any point that it actually teaches. Accordingly, they see themselves as re-claiming a tradition that has been overtaken by a more wooden, modernistic, apologetic impulse. Some desire to restore what they see as an original meaning to inerrancy that has been capsized and is sadly no longer current. (I am trying to restate concerns that I have heard people voice and read in emails and in other places. What I wrote above is not what I would say for my part.)
May 6, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Carlos:
I know most people wouldn’t agree, which is why I push the issue. I’m also familiar with the concerns–I just think they can’t be maintained.
I think formulations like “the bible does no err in any point that it actually teaches” begs a whole lot of questions. For instance, what does the Bible “teach” and how do you know? How do we define “teaching,” and where are we getting that definition? And if from scripture, isn’t that circular? And what room does a definition like this make for the enourmous textual problems in certain books–e.g. Samuels, Isaiah, and Jeremiah? The list goes on. Also, for my part I’m also not sure when “inerrancy” became a Christian value. It certainly wasn’t in the early Church: folks like Jerome and Origen were perfectly content with upholding the Bible’s authority while admitting textual and historical errors where they had evidence. They knew that proper interpretation required a double play between the use of the Bible itself and its contexts, and that it was an art form, not a science.
FYI, Gaffin asked Tom Wright whether he upheld this definition of inerrancy (in my hearing). Wright waffled and wouldn’t say yes. There’s a good reason why. It’s just way too problematic a definition to be salvageable.
May 7, 2008 at 8:14 am
Carlos
It is difficult to know exactly where you are coming from. You claim the the doctrine of inerrancy is decidedly harmful and has caused a great deal of damage. You have also stated that you prefer Briggs to Warfield on the subject- and now you start to hedge you bet by suggesting that, well, maybe the term inerrancy isn’t all that bad after all- it got hijacked by those black hatted Old Princetonians- but thanks to ‘real’ scholars like Kenton Sparks , we can rehabilitate the term along the lines of ‘errant inerrancy’. Briggs would laugh out loud at you and Warfield would think you’ve lost your marbles.
May 7, 2008 at 9:23 am
GLW: I think the interpretive crux for Carlos’ statement above is that final two sentences.
May 7, 2008 at 1:26 pm
GLW:
So you’ve figured out what all these dead people would say about me, but you can’t discern what I myself am actually saying. I don’t think inerrancy’s helpful–we’ve already been through that; some other progressives do think inerrancy’s helpful, they just prefer to modify/clarify it. I was trying to point out to JD that a lot of progressives (WTS progressives are included here) want to hold on to the term inerrancy and simplify clarify its meaning. That’s all I wrote, that’s all I meant.
What gives, GLW? Why do you come out shooting before looking around to see what’s going on?
May 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm
JD,
If we drop inerrancy, as you suggest, how do we keep the same problems from reappearing in other areas of our doctrine of Scripture? For example, if we say that Scripture is authoritative but has errors, then, it seems to me, we either have to explain how an error can be authoritative or separate Scripture into authoritative and non authoritative teachings. Assuming we opt for the latter, I don’t see this as any easier of a task than determining what Scripture does and doesn’t teach (keeping the doctrine of inerrancy viable). The advantage of keeping inerrancy is that it gives us a framework for facing the problems (by determining what Scripture does and does not teach) while at the same time remaining explicitly faithful to the teaching of Jesus on Scripture. I think this is the crux of Warfield’s argument.
May 8, 2008 at 7:49 am
Carlos
Please accept my apologies for misreading you- but kindly spell out what you were driving at by referencing ’scholars’ who want to retain the word ‘inerrancy’ but dramatically change the way it has historicall been understood. Again, are we to expeced to accept divinely inspired myths and ’stories that are made-up’ as now part of the inerant Scriptures?