Episode 69 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. Mike Licona from Risen Jesus Ministries joins me to discuss the resurrection of Jesus and the recent controversy over his interpretation of Matthew 27:51-53.
Showing posts with label Inerrancy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inerrancy. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Episode 36: God Makes No Mistakes
Episode 36 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Jamin Hübner from RealApologetics.org joins me to discuss the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Coming Soon: Interview with Jamin Hübner
Jamin was gracious enough to agree to let me interview him in an upcoming episode of the Theopologetics Podcast to talk about the inerrancy of Scripture. Stay tuned!
Friday, January 29, 2010
Basic Bibliology: What Do You Say that You Are?
The study of bibliology is a complex one, and there are a number of places I'm sure we could start. I think that a natural place to start is with the Bible's self-testimony. That is, what does Scripture say of itself? What does the Bible claim itself to be? This is by no means the end of the discussion; as we'll see, thanks to the great points raised by a new reader (and old friend), there are many questions which must be asked, many issues which must be examined. And we won't neglect them.
Nevertheless, we must start somewhere, so we might as well start here. Jesus once asked Peter, "who do you say that I am" (Matthew 16:15)? Similarly, how does Scripture respond when we ask, "What do you say that you are?" We'll discover that the consistent testimony is that it is the very words breathed out by God, not the product primarily of human will; that by virtue of being His words it must be true; and that His words endure forever.
Nevertheless, we must start somewhere, so we might as well start here. Jesus once asked Peter, "who do you say that I am" (Matthew 16:15)? Similarly, how does Scripture respond when we ask, "What do you say that you are?" We'll discover that the consistent testimony is that it is the very words breathed out by God, not the product primarily of human will; that by virtue of being His words it must be true; and that His words endure forever.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Basic Bibliology: The Study of the Bible
An old friend of mine discovered my blog recently and sent me an email which has inspired me to start a new series. In the email my friend asked a great question:
This is an EXCELLENT question, and I would agree with my friend that many churches do sort of brush this question aside as having been "settled." I would also agree that many who hold to biblical inerrancy--as yes, I do--cannot articulate why they do so, and yet insist that Christians agree. I believe this is why in recent years an increasing number of Christians hold to a more liberal view of the Bible's "inspiration," one in which the overall message of the Bible and certain doctrines drawn from it are "infallible," meanwhile acknowledging that there are nevertheless factual and historical errors and contradictions that can't be denied.
BIBLIO-WHA?
"Bibliology" is simply the study of the Bible. By that I don't mean that it is the study of what the Bible teaches, but rather what the Bible is. It is the study of its nature, of its origin, of its history. When we study bibliology we ask questions such as: Is the Bible inerrant? Or is it merely infallible? What is the difference? What does the Bible say about itself? What is the canon, and how was it decided upon? And so on and so forth.
Note that this is not the same thing as "bibliolatry". Bibliolatry is the worship of the Bible, and is typically an accusation leveled at those like myself who believe Scripture is inerrant. Let me be clear: with the exception, perhaps, of some rare pseudo-Christian sects of which I'm completely unaware, Christians do not worship the Bible. That's true of Christians across the bibliological spectrum, as it were, including myself and those like me. That we believe the Bible contains the inerrant Word of God does not mean we elevate it to an object of worship like God Himself.
My initial answer to this question is quite simple: If the Bible contains any errors, how can I possible know whether or not anything it says is erroneous? Of course this does not even come close to fully addressing the many, many issues some have with biblical inerrancy. But I do think my answer makes it clear that there are consequences to our stance on this issue. The moment one accepts that there were any errors in what the authors of Scripture originally wrote is the moment at which one hands over the ability to discern truth from error to one's emotions, to one's leaders, to one's community or to any other fallible human being or group of fallible human beings. That's a concession we must not make lightly.
BASIC BIBLIOLOGY
So with all that having been said, I'm excited to introduce this series in which we will study the nature, origin and history of the Bible. In his email my friend raised many great points, and over time we'll look at all of them and more. If we're going to call ourselves Christians, and if we're going to look to the Bible at all as the source for our world view, we ought to examine this question and grapple with "Basic Bibliology."
"I have a question for you...and I think you subscribe to the theory of the inerrant bible. Why do we believe the bible is inerrant. I know I'm supposed to believe that, but I don't understand why I'm supposed to believe that when the only one telling me that are people that believe it but don't know why...
Thanks for helping me work through this very important issue...As you know, Church's discourage opening up 'settled' issues and unfortunately that has lead church leadership to not have the answers to these questions because no one dared ask them in seminary lest they be run out on a rail!"
This is an EXCELLENT question, and I would agree with my friend that many churches do sort of brush this question aside as having been "settled." I would also agree that many who hold to biblical inerrancy--as yes, I do--cannot articulate why they do so, and yet insist that Christians agree. I believe this is why in recent years an increasing number of Christians hold to a more liberal view of the Bible's "inspiration," one in which the overall message of the Bible and certain doctrines drawn from it are "infallible," meanwhile acknowledging that there are nevertheless factual and historical errors and contradictions that can't be denied.
BIBLIO-WHA?
"Bibliology" is simply the study of the Bible. By that I don't mean that it is the study of what the Bible teaches, but rather what the Bible is. It is the study of its nature, of its origin, of its history. When we study bibliology we ask questions such as: Is the Bible inerrant? Or is it merely infallible? What is the difference? What does the Bible say about itself? What is the canon, and how was it decided upon? And so on and so forth.
Note that this is not the same thing as "bibliolatry". Bibliolatry is the worship of the Bible, and is typically an accusation leveled at those like myself who believe Scripture is inerrant. Let me be clear: with the exception, perhaps, of some rare pseudo-Christian sects of which I'm completely unaware, Christians do not worship the Bible. That's true of Christians across the bibliological spectrum, as it were, including myself and those like me. That we believe the Bible contains the inerrant Word of God does not mean we elevate it to an object of worship like God Himself.
My initial answer to this question is quite simple: If the Bible contains any errors, how can I possible know whether or not anything it says is erroneous? Of course this does not even come close to fully addressing the many, many issues some have with biblical inerrancy. But I do think my answer makes it clear that there are consequences to our stance on this issue. The moment one accepts that there were any errors in what the authors of Scripture originally wrote is the moment at which one hands over the ability to discern truth from error to one's emotions, to one's leaders, to one's community or to any other fallible human being or group of fallible human beings. That's a concession we must not make lightly.
BASIC BIBLIOLOGY
So with all that having been said, I'm excited to introduce this series in which we will study the nature, origin and history of the Bible. In his email my friend raised many great points, and over time we'll look at all of them and more. If we're going to call ourselves Christians, and if we're going to look to the Bible at all as the source for our world view, we ought to examine this question and grapple with "Basic Bibliology."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)