3 THEO D

.docx

School

Grand Canyon University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

505-O502

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by MegaRavenMaster687

3 THEO D JBRAZ LIBERTY
Erickson goes on to expand his definition of the “Full Inerrancy” position. He lays out five subpoints that deal with this position. (1) Inerrancy pertains to what is affirmed or asserted rather than what is merely reported (Erickson 2014, 202). To this point, there may be information reported by either goldy or ungodly people that is incorrect. However, if the author asserts or affirms a point it must be taken as truth. (2) We must judge the truthfulness of Scripture in terms of its meaning in the cultural setting in which its statements were expressed (Erickson 2014, 203). It is important to note that everything has a cultural context. Our cultural context today is very different from the time of the biblical authors. (3) The Bible’s assertions are fully true when judged in accordance with the purpose for which they were written (Erickson 2014, 204). This point draws on the idea that if the author wanted the reader to know that there was an army that had a large amount, the author may give a rough estimate but not an exact number. This is something that happens in our modern day as well. We give round numbers as times when we will arrive at dinner “I will be there at 7:00 pm” and then you arrive at 7:05. The intended meaning of the statement is truthful. (4) Reports of historical events and scientific matters are in phenomenal rather than technical language. That is, the writer reports how things appear to the eye. This is the ordinary practice in any kind of popular (as opposed to technical) writing (Erickson 2014, 204). This is also a practice that we do today. I have been told on numerous occasions to eye something that needs measurement. These concepts in the bible do not make the bible less true but are not of utmost concern to the author. Lastly, Difficulties in explaining the biblical text should not be prejudged as indications of error. (Erickson 2014, 205). Just because we do not have an adequate explanation of something scientific or historical does not immediately necessitate that there is an error. My argument for taking the “Full Inerrancy position” is that this position maintains the trustworthiness of scripture while also being honest with the concept that there are situations in the bible that are not being reported accurately. The Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy states “We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration (The Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy). However, there is no way to prove the truthfulness of that claim. The same phenomena that happen in our copies may still exist in the originals. However, I am overtly convinced that the affirmations and the assertions are truthful to the extent they can be tested. If you are to take the position of limited inerrancy which “regards the Bible as inerrant and infallible in its salvific doctrinal references” (Erikson 2014, 191), any historical or scientific claim becomes relative and is a slippery slope to accepting theological relativity within the text. The “Full Inerrancy” position upholds the veracity of scripture while handling the text with integrity.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help