Love to see Catholic and Protestant work together, instead against each other. We missing the point we have common enemies today : atheism, scepticism, leftism, etc.
I think the problem with the flexible view of inerrancy, is that it starts sowing seed of doubts. Perhaps Paul was mistaken about homosexuality being binding for the new covenant, perhaps Jesus never spoke against divorce as strong as he did and exaggerated a little and the gospel writers were mistaken. Perhaps Paul misinterpreted Genesis about Adam - Jesus typology and thus allowing for polygenism. It may not appear to be a problem but I think we will start running into heresies springing forth from a unorthodox view of scripture. Once you open the door to allowing errors in scripture, people will start more concessions one after another. Also, why even hold an any level of inerrancy, why not just hold that the scriptures are fallible but they are authoritative and binding on Christians but not infallible or that only the words of Jesus are infallible. In addition, unless Mr Licona will allow for two sets of inspiration, then he's questioning the authenticity of large chunks of the OT as well. Perhaps some of these messianic prophecies weren't actually spoken by the prophets, perhaps the exodus never happened and it was all a story or maybe a ton of the miracles were hyped up stories and only some of it really happened etc. Mr Licona claims that God in his sovereignty would allow what is necessary for salvation to be preserved. But that basically allows a good chunk of the parables in the Gospels to potentially be fallible, since they aren't essential for salvation or large chunks of the OT. I think Mr Licona will need to provide a much better justification for how we can know what is error and what is not, otherwise he's throwing a lot of it as potentially fallible and I think at the point it seems unreasonable to hold. I think the question also ought to be asked why God would allow errors into the text such that we have to throw the traditional view of inerrancy which was a considered the orthodox view of scripture for centuries. Can people start making up their own views of scriptural inerrancy? Is there a point where we draw the line and say, if you deny that this part of scripture is inerrant, then you are denying an essential part of the Gospel? It seems like Protestantism on steroids, instead of new church making, it's making a novel views of scriptural inerrancy? Is it even reasonable to believe in Christianity at this point, why do people who reject Christianity go to hell, if they have legitimate reasons for doing so? Isn't it far easier to say perhaps something supernatural happened but it wasn't God? Ultimately, I think this feels more like a backstab to genuine Christians. Now practically all the intellectual atheists and Muslims are going to start quoting you as proof of failure of scriptural inerrancy and the average layman is stuck in the midst of this. I will admit I didn't respond to the problems with the traditional view of scriptural inerrancy. But that's my disputation.
The problem with this is that the errors that Dr. Licona is talking about are incidental details that are not part of the Scriptural message. The Scriptural teaching on homosexuality are part of the message of Scripture. Paul's moral teachings are not incidental to the text. They are part of the substance of the message. If you go that route that you suggest, then to say that because the Greek grammar in the Book of Revelation is exceedingly poor, thus constituting grammatical errors, then how can one be confident that Jesus will ultimately come back to sit in judgment upon the world? The Chicago Statement does not see the existence of grammatical errors as impinging on inerrancy. So why should we place incidental details, such as "did Paul really leave his cloak with Troas with Carpus, or was it somebody else?" on the same level as Paul's teaching on human sexuality? This is an example of the false equivalence fallacy. Do you find fault with my disputation?
@@clarkemorledge2398 You are missing my point. 1) If Paul is wrong on x, then Paul can be wrong on a few other things as well, it won't immediately lead to conclusions like Paul could have misinterpreted what God wanted regarding sexuality but it will incrementally. I think at one point in the interview Licona said that Mark may have misremembered, well what else could have failed to remember then? 2) If Licona can make a new view of scriptural inerrancy Why can't I? This essentially creates Protestantism on steroids 3) This is going to sow seeds of doubt among layman and opponents of the faith are going to use this against us 4) It is not an orthodox view of scripture 5) Licona's justification for where we draw the line is not as clear as it should be (granted it may be more clear in the book)?
@@intellectualcatholicism I don't think I am required to answer this question though I respect you Suan (partially cos it feels like you are side stepping my entire response, you can probably make an educated guess based on my response), thanks for your content. I do respect the dialogue but I feel like we are ignoring the consequences.
@@whitevortex8323I don't think he is side stepping... Your answer will dictate how he further responds to your objections. Why did you jump to this conclusion??
I think it's clear there are contradictions in the Gospels, minor things such as what items Jesus tells the disciples to take with them on the road. However as a Catholic I think it's fine, it would be nice if everything was 1:1 but it's just not the case. I don't think it has implications on whether Jesus rose from the dead or not.
@@TheChurchofBreadandCheese yeah, I listened to the video, even read his section where he mentioned St. John made stuff up, that wouldn’t be historical reliable wouldn’t it?
Isn't the catholic view on the Bible kind of in the middle these two positions? We don't view the Bible as a science book but as infallible in its doctrinal and moral teaching. And that the Bible contains a human element in a form of multiple human authors (writing different genres of literature), who were all inspired by the same God. In that sense the Bible has a single author or source. I would also be careful with the label of contradiction, which basically means a logical impossibility. As an example the different descriptions of Judas' death or Paul's encounter with Christ can be explained harmonically with an explanation that is logically possible, therefore it's not logical impossibility and therefore not really a contradiction.
The Catholic doctrine of inerrancy (per Dei Filius, Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Humani Generis, and yes - even Dei Verbum) is that the Scripture contains no errors in what the inspired authors (human or God through them) affirm as true. It is not limited to some set of claims (such as only those on faith and morals). The key question is what the authors truly intend to affirm as true, and what is merely a compositional device or facon de parler etc.
Love to see Catholic and Protestant work together, instead against each other. We missing the point we have common enemies today : atheism, scepticism, leftism, etc.
You forgot rightism.
*skepticism
@@Testimony_Of_JTFSceptic is British English, skeptic is American English.
@@Sahih_al-Bukhari_2658 Oh ok
Hey suan do you hold to traditional authorship? Seems Dr Licona does
I think the problem with the flexible view of inerrancy, is that it starts sowing seed of doubts. Perhaps Paul was mistaken about homosexuality being binding for the new covenant, perhaps Jesus never spoke against divorce as strong as he did and exaggerated a little and the gospel writers were mistaken. Perhaps Paul misinterpreted Genesis about Adam - Jesus typology and thus allowing for polygenism. It may not appear to be a problem but I think we will start running into heresies springing forth from a unorthodox view of scripture. Once you open the door to allowing errors in scripture, people will start more concessions one after another. Also, why even hold an any level of inerrancy, why not just hold that the scriptures are fallible but they are authoritative and binding on Christians but not infallible or that only the words of Jesus are infallible.
In addition, unless Mr Licona will allow for two sets of inspiration, then he's questioning the authenticity of large chunks of the OT as well. Perhaps some of these messianic prophecies weren't actually spoken by the prophets, perhaps the exodus never happened and it was all a story or maybe a ton of the miracles were hyped up stories and only some of it really happened etc.
Mr Licona claims that God in his sovereignty would allow what is necessary for salvation to be preserved. But that basically allows a good chunk of the parables in the Gospels to potentially be fallible, since they aren't essential for salvation or large chunks of the OT. I think Mr Licona will need to provide a much better justification for how we can know what is error and what is not, otherwise he's throwing a lot of it as potentially fallible and I think at the point it seems unreasonable to hold.
I think the question also ought to be asked why God would allow errors into the text such that we have to throw the traditional view of inerrancy which was a considered the orthodox view of scripture for centuries. Can people start making up their own views of scriptural inerrancy? Is there a point where we draw the line and say, if you deny that this part of scripture is inerrant, then you are denying an essential part of the Gospel? It seems like Protestantism on steroids, instead of new church making, it's making a novel views of scriptural inerrancy? Is it even reasonable to believe in Christianity at this point, why do people who reject Christianity go to hell, if they have legitimate reasons for doing so? Isn't it far easier to say perhaps something supernatural happened but it wasn't God?
Ultimately, I think this feels more like a backstab to genuine Christians. Now practically all the intellectual atheists and Muslims are going to start quoting you as proof of failure of scriptural inerrancy and the average layman is stuck in the midst of this.
I will admit I didn't respond to the problems with the traditional view of scriptural inerrancy. But that's my disputation.
The problem with this is that the errors that Dr. Licona is talking about are incidental details that are not part of the Scriptural message. The Scriptural teaching on homosexuality are part of the message of Scripture. Paul's moral teachings are not incidental to the text. They are part of the substance of the message. If you go that route that you suggest, then to say that because the Greek grammar in the Book of Revelation is exceedingly poor, thus constituting grammatical errors, then how can one be confident that Jesus will ultimately come back to sit in judgment upon the world? The Chicago Statement does not see the existence of grammatical errors as impinging on inerrancy. So why should we place incidental details, such as "did Paul really leave his cloak with Troas with Carpus, or was it somebody else?" on the same level as Paul's teaching on human sexuality? This is an example of the false equivalence fallacy. Do you find fault with my disputation?
I'm just curious. Are you Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox?
@@clarkemorledge2398 You are missing my point. 1) If Paul is wrong on x, then Paul can be wrong on a few other things as well, it won't immediately lead to conclusions like Paul could have misinterpreted what God wanted regarding sexuality but it will incrementally. I think at one point in the interview Licona said that Mark may have misremembered, well what else could have failed to remember then? 2) If Licona can make a new view of scriptural inerrancy Why can't I? This essentially creates Protestantism on steroids 3) This is going to sow seeds of doubt among layman and opponents of the faith are going to use this against us 4) It is not an orthodox view of scripture 5) Licona's justification for where we draw the line is not as clear as it should be (granted it may be more clear in the book)?
@@intellectualcatholicism I don't think I am required to answer this question though I respect you Suan (partially cos it feels like you are side stepping my entire response, you can probably make an educated guess based on my response), thanks for your content. I do respect the dialogue but I feel like we are ignoring the consequences.
@@whitevortex8323I don't think he is side stepping... Your answer will dictate how he further responds to your objections. Why did you jump to this conclusion??
Suan what is your view on what the Church teaches in Dei Verbum on inerrancy?
I think it's clear there are contradictions in the Gospels, minor things such as what items Jesus tells the disciples to take with them on the road. However as a Catholic I think it's fine, it would be nice if everything was 1:1 but it's just not the case. I don't think it has implications on whether Jesus rose from the dead or not.
Contradictions? How so?
@@buckledcrane9639 Mike goes through a few in the video.
@@TheChurchofBreadandCheese yeah, I listened to the video, even read his section where he mentioned St. John made stuff up, that wouldn’t be historical reliable wouldn’t it?
@@buckledcrane9639 What do you think?
@@TheChurchofBreadandCheese I don’t see any benefit of an apostle inventing a story :/
Isn't the catholic view on the Bible kind of in the middle these two positions? We don't view the Bible as a science book but as infallible in its doctrinal and moral teaching.
And that the Bible contains a human element in a form of multiple human authors (writing different genres of literature), who were all inspired by the same God. In that sense the Bible has a single author or source. I would also be careful with the label of contradiction, which basically means a logical impossibility. As an example the different descriptions of Judas' death or Paul's encounter with Christ can be explained harmonically with an explanation that is logically possible, therefore it's not logical impossibility and therefore not really a contradiction.
The Catholic doctrine of inerrancy (per Dei Filius, Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Humani Generis, and yes - even Dei Verbum) is that the Scripture contains no errors in what the inspired authors (human or God through them) affirm as true. It is not limited to some set of claims (such as only those on faith and morals). The key question is what the authors truly intend to affirm as true, and what is merely a compositional device or facon de parler etc.
You should get Lydia McGrew on to talk about minimal facts and maximal data
McGrew > most "scholars"
I completely agree!