I know Im asking randomly but does anybody know of a way to get back into an Instagram account?? I was stupid forgot my account password. I would love any tricks you can give me
Dr Vanhoozer and D.A Carson helped me understand the inerrancy of Scripture more than anyone and I am very thankful to them both... because so many important doctrines fall into place as a result of this.
As usual, great interview- great insight and clarity given on the topic through a knowledgeable guest and totally awesome hosts asking great questions and giving much clarity.
My issue with the term “inerrant”: it is a “theological term, not biblical, that doesn’t seem to have definite and concise definition. Ever increasing lists of theological labels cause more confusion than edification. So I prefer to stick with what scripture says about its own authority instead of creating imprecise terminology that merely muddies understanding.
That inerrancy only applies to the autographs - of which we have none left - is problematic for me. I'm good with a high view of Scripture (Prima Scriptura, infallibility, & θεόπνευστος myself), but I fail to see enough cash value in inerrancy.
@@dalethomas5392 I agree totally. Even if the original autographs had been written by God Himself - they are no longer accessible and therefore the issue of THEIR inerrancy is moot. I wrote the following on my blog several years ago: The original manuscript claim has two main problems that I see: 1) We no longer have access to those originals so the claim can only be an assumption. No one in thousands of years has seen the “original manuscripts” to put them to the test. (And how would we test them anyway?) 2) Even if the original manuscripts can be accepted as “inerrant” we don’t have them to reference, so their inerrancy is of no use - we only have the later manuscripts that by inference are not as “inerrant” as the originals.
Aristotle tells us that the great contribution Socrates made to philosophy was his quest for the definitions of terms. Traditional theological terms typically have specific definitions. However, terms like inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility are often subjectively defined. "if you wish to converse with me, define your terms." ~ Voltaire
I had written my following remark elsewhere, @@onesimustim8424 , but it seems related to your comment regarding 'the original manuscript claim.' First I believe we need to view "inspiration" as the gift of a human-divine partnership through the Spirit. Then we need to understand that "inerrancy" theologically means that anything the Bible claims to be true -- is true. Yes, I understand that's different than what the English definition is. For me there is no issue with scribal errors in the extant manuscripts (the ones which we know to currently exist) because we have a process in place which allows us to get back, reliably, to the inerrant originals, to which we don't have access. In other words, the Scripture has integrity regarding its Truth claims even though there have been glosses & revisions (ex: Ezekiel 1:1-3) over the 1,500 years during which the 66 books were written, recognized, and compiled.
I like what KV said at 38:45 to 41:00 about the so-called ‘inerrancy of the cross’. There is a holy mystery involved with the doctrine of scripture (as with all the core beliefs of our Christian faith).
Makes sense. If I believe that Jesus was and is the Christ, I have to believe that the OT is inerrant, by necessity. If I don't believe the OT, then I can't believe in Jesus because he not only quotes it, but is the fulfillment of it. His whole ministry was built on that tradition, from Adam to Moses, to David, to the prophets, to Jesus. So it makes sense.
~50:40 in the host calls the guest a poet… it would have been really nice to know that before the end… now I have to reinterpret everything he said using a poetic grid🤦♂️🥴🤪
What keeps Christians from criticizing the Bible is their fear of going to hell. The fear stops the reasoning. The Old Testament is filled with cruel events and laws. But Christians hold unto those abhorrent ideas.
Our hermeneutics are not perfect. The biblical manuscripts we have access to today, while of high quality and accuracy, are not perfect. Our knowledge of ancient Greek and Hebrew languages, while quite good, are not perfect. Our knowledge of the historical, religious, and cultural contexts in which the biblical books were written and delivered to God's people, while constantaly improving, are not perfect. Therefore, even if the original writings were perfect, which I would like to think they were, the message we can receive today from scripture is imperfect. So, what does inerrancy really mean? A long interview here really just seemed to say we should take a high view of scripture, which I agree with, but the word "inerrancy" does not seem to actually explain anything. What use is that word? What does it actually mean? Lots of talk but no clarity. The word "inerrancy" has no usefullness for actually explaining anything.
That inerrancy only applies to the autographs - of which we have none left - is problematic for me. I'm good with a high view of Scripture (Prima Scriptura, infallibility, & θεόπνευστος myself), but I fail to see enough cash value in inerrancy.
I was taught infallible but not inerrant. However, according to many, they somehow believe inerrant as being synonymous with infallible, so that has put me in a position of seeming “progressive” as I explain my stance to others
I get the deductive logic of the inerrantist position and think it is sound. But since it only applies to the autographs, I'm not sure how it's a helpful position for us today.
First we need to see "inspiration" as the gift of a human-divine partnership through the Spirit. Then we need to understand that "inerrancy" theologically means that anything the Bible claims to be true -- is true. There is no issue with scribal errors in the extant manuscripts because we have a process in place which allows us to get back, reliably, to the inerrant originals, to which we don't have access. In other words, the Scripture has integrity regarding its Truth claims even though there have been glosses & revisions (ex: Ezekiel 1:1-3) during the 1,500 years which the 66 books were written, recognized, and compiled.
@@IndianaJoe0321 We cannot prove that the process of textual criticism is perfectly reliable. I think it’s ‘generally reliable’ or ‘very reliable’. Even if we somehow discovered every manuscript copy that’s ever been written the scholars and text critics would not put the texts together in EXACTLY the same way.
Protestants, including evangelicals have no idea what they’re talking about with regard to this. They say that the Scriptures are without error and infallible. They also say that scripture alone can be trusted to be the truthful word of God and anything extra biblical must submit to the Scriptures themselves. The Scriptures themselves do not claim inerrancy or infallibility, therefore inerrancy of Scripture is an extra biblical doctrine.
@@2wheelz3504 “Your word is truth”. You have to take an insurmountable leap to assuming that the Bible is the word of a god. Islam could claim the same.
The Bible is the theology in a small region in the world at a very specific time. Jesus only lived two thousand years ago which is a drop in the bucket in time. So, it cannot be about Jesus. It must be about his message which was unconditional love. There have been thousands of theologies in our history throughout the world. Saying that the Hebrew theology represents the whole world is myopic. Remember that 200 years ago, most people did not have a Bible and even if they did, they couldn't read it. There are thousands of languages so how can you translate it and translate it well? What about mass printing and distribution. Over 200 years ago, it was impossible. What kind of idea is that to spread anything? It is not practical nor is it reasonable. Centuries ago, Martin Luther came to the conclusion that the Pope was not needed. He was right. Now it is time to say the same thing about the Bible. A book can be helpful but the primary communication is always direct. God communicates not through a book but through the hearts of each person throughout time, everywhere. That communication is pure. That communication is personal. Any book can be mistranslated because of the ambiguity of words and ambiguity of culture. Remember that the Bible even says "The knowledge of the kingdom of heaven is within you."
I feel like I’m getting free seminary classes from Remnant Radio. I so appreciate the work you guys do.
I know Im asking randomly but does anybody know of a way to get back into an Instagram account??
I was stupid forgot my account password. I would love any tricks you can give me
Dr Vanhoozer and D.A Carson helped me understand the inerrancy of Scripture more than anyone and I am very thankful to them both... because so many important doctrines fall into place as a result of this.
As usual, great interview- great insight and clarity given on the topic through a knowledgeable guest and totally awesome hosts asking great questions and giving much clarity.
My issue with the term “inerrant”: it is a “theological term, not biblical, that doesn’t seem to have definite and concise definition.
Ever increasing lists of theological labels cause more confusion than edification. So I prefer to stick with what scripture says about its own authority instead of creating imprecise terminology that merely muddies understanding.
That inerrancy only applies to the autographs - of which we have none left - is problematic for me. I'm good with a high view of Scripture (Prima Scriptura, infallibility, & θεόπνευστος myself), but I fail to see enough cash value in inerrancy.
@@dalethomas5392 I agree totally. Even if the original autographs had been written by God Himself - they are no longer accessible and therefore the issue of THEIR inerrancy is moot.
I wrote the following on my blog several years ago:
The original manuscript claim has two main problems that I see:
1) We no longer have access to those originals so the claim can only be an assumption. No one in thousands of years has seen the “original manuscripts” to put them to the test. (And how would we test them anyway?)
2) Even if the original manuscripts can be accepted as “inerrant” we don’t have them to reference, so their inerrancy is of no use - we only have the later manuscripts that by inference are not as “inerrant” as the originals.
Aristotle tells us that the great contribution Socrates made to philosophy was his quest for the definitions of terms.
Traditional theological terms typically have specific definitions. However, terms like inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility are often subjectively defined.
"if you wish to converse with me, define your terms." ~ Voltaire
I had written my following remark elsewhere, @@onesimustim8424 , but it seems related to your comment regarding 'the original manuscript claim.'
First I believe we need to view "inspiration" as the gift of a human-divine partnership through the Spirit.
Then we need to understand that "inerrancy" theologically means that anything the Bible claims to be true -- is true. Yes, I understand that's different than what the English definition is.
For me there is no issue with scribal errors in the extant manuscripts (the ones which we know to currently exist) because we have a process in place which allows us to get back, reliably, to the inerrant originals, to which we don't have access.
In other words, the Scripture has integrity regarding its Truth claims even though there have been glosses & revisions (ex: Ezekiel 1:1-3) over the 1,500 years during which the 66 books were written, recognized, and compiled.
@@IndianaJoe0321 All well and good for philosophical wrestling - which unfortunately is what most theology is.
I look forward to see quality content like this.
God bless all of you, and your ministries!
Correction: Not Hal Lindsey but Harold Lindsell.
I like what KV said at 38:45 to 41:00 about the so-called ‘inerrancy of the cross’. There is a holy mystery involved with the doctrine of scripture (as with all the core beliefs of our Christian faith).
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
It would be interesting to see Dr. Vanhoozer debate Bart Ehrman on inerrancy.
This is good
Thank you from Sweden 🙂
You should do the Jeremiah 23 video here on TH-cam. I hope you adress every heretic hunters favorite term "false".
42:10 the Chicago statement
Makes sense. If I believe that Jesus was and is the Christ, I have to believe that the OT is inerrant, by necessity. If I don't believe the OT, then I can't believe in Jesus because he not only quotes it, but is the fulfillment of it. His whole ministry was built on that tradition, from Adam to Moses, to David, to the prophets, to Jesus.
So it makes sense.
~50:40 in the host calls the guest a poet… it would have been really nice to know that before the end… now I have to reinterpret everything he said using a poetic grid🤦♂️🥴🤪
John MacArthur's bible says, "Be like the Pharisees." But it should have read, "Beware the Pharisees." sometimes they'res typos.
I promise i'm not laughing
What keeps Christians from criticizing the Bible is their fear of going to hell. The fear stops the reasoning. The Old Testament is filled with cruel events and laws. But Christians hold unto those abhorrent ideas.
Our hermeneutics are not perfect. The biblical manuscripts we have access to today, while of high quality and accuracy, are not perfect. Our knowledge of ancient Greek and Hebrew languages, while quite good, are not perfect. Our knowledge of the historical, religious, and cultural contexts in which the biblical books were written and delivered to God's people, while constantaly improving, are not perfect. Therefore, even if the original writings were perfect, which I would like to think they were, the message we can receive today from scripture is imperfect. So, what does inerrancy really mean? A long interview here really just seemed to say we should take a high view of scripture, which I agree with, but the word "inerrancy" does not seem to actually explain anything. What use is that word? What does it actually mean? Lots of talk but no clarity. The word "inerrancy" has no usefullness for actually explaining anything.
That inerrancy only applies to the autographs - of which we have none left - is problematic for me. I'm good with a high view of Scripture (Prima Scriptura, infallibility, & θεόπνευστος myself), but I fail to see enough cash value in inerrancy.
I was taught infallible but not inerrant. However, according to many, they somehow believe inerrant as being synonymous with infallible, so that has put me in a position of seeming “progressive” as I explain my stance to others
I get the deductive logic of the inerrantist position and think it is sound. But since it only applies to the autographs, I'm not sure how it's a helpful position for us today.
First we need to see "inspiration" as the gift of a human-divine partnership through the Spirit.
Then we need to understand that "inerrancy" theologically means that anything the Bible claims to be true -- is true.
There is no issue with scribal errors in the extant manuscripts because we have a process in place which allows us to get back, reliably, to the inerrant originals, to which we don't have access. In other words, the Scripture has integrity regarding its Truth claims even though there have been glosses & revisions (ex: Ezekiel 1:1-3) during the 1,500 years which the 66 books were written, recognized, and compiled.
@@IndianaJoe0321
We cannot prove that the process of textual criticism is perfectly reliable. I think it’s ‘generally reliable’ or ‘very reliable’. Even if we somehow discovered every manuscript copy that’s ever been written the scholars and text critics would not put the texts together in EXACTLY the same way.
Protestants, including evangelicals have no idea what they’re talking about with regard to this. They say that the Scriptures are without error and infallible. They also say that scripture alone can be trusted to be the truthful word of God and anything extra biblical must submit to the Scriptures themselves. The Scriptures themselves do not claim inerrancy or infallibility, therefore inerrancy of Scripture is an extra biblical doctrine.
@@2wheelz3504 Sola Scriptura, for instance is a completely extra-biblical doctrine, completely at odds with the doctrine itself.
@@2wheelz3504 “Your word is truth”. You have to take an insurmountable leap to assuming that the Bible is the word of a god. Islam could claim the same.
Is it me or am I the only one who cringes when he says literature? Lol
Must be my NY accent
Soon dawn will break on the Big Apple, then the rising sun will first kiss the skyscrapers, weather permitting . . . Honest ; )
The Bible is the theology in a small region in the world at a very specific time. Jesus only lived two thousand years ago which is a drop in the bucket in time. So, it cannot be about Jesus. It must be about his message which was unconditional love.
There have been thousands of theologies in our history throughout the world. Saying that the Hebrew theology represents the whole world is myopic. Remember that 200 years ago, most people did not have a Bible and even if they did, they couldn't read it. There are thousands of languages so how can you translate it and translate it well? What about mass printing and distribution. Over 200 years ago, it was impossible. What kind of idea is that to spread anything? It is not practical nor is it reasonable.
Centuries ago, Martin Luther came to the conclusion that the Pope was not needed. He was right. Now it is time to say the same thing about the Bible. A book can be helpful but the primary communication is always direct.
God communicates not through a book but through the hearts of each person throughout time, everywhere. That communication is pure. That communication is personal. Any book can be mistranslated because of the ambiguity of words and ambiguity of culture.
Remember that the Bible even says "The knowledge of the kingdom of heaven is within you."
So just a bunch of guys talking about fairy tales. Pittiful
God loves you and has a plan for your life. Take care