3 THEO E
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Grand Canyon University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
505-O502
Subject
Religion
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by MegaRavenMaster687
3 THEO E
JBRAZ
LIBERTY
This doctrine is exceedingly important for the contemporary church. As I mentioned before it is the proverbial hinge on which the entire Christian faith turns. If the bible is indeed in error, we have no basis to claim it is true in any area. If Inerrancy is untrue, any untested claim of the bible can in no way be seen as truthful. At best those claims are to be considered possible. In the epistemological importance of inerrancy Erickson notes “Since the principle has been abrogated that whatever the Bible teaches is necessarily true, the mere fact that the Bible teaches these other propositions is an insufficient basis in itself for holding them” (Erickson 2014, 196). If the bible teaches anything that is not truthful, that we can test, then we in no way
can be sure that anything that cannot be tested is true. Christianity becomes a proverbial “house of cards”. It is of the utmost importance for the modern church to understand and communicate the doctrine of inerrancy.
In your fourth paragraph you state, “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.” I’m not sure that I agree with the wording you chose there. To say that situations may not have been reported accurately, to me, casts doubt regarding the events themselves as recorded in the Bible. I much prefer to say that there may be variations in the details, but that the event being discussed did occur. For example, I may say there were thirty people at the party, and someone else may say fifty. Although we differ on the details, we both agree that the party took place. I’m sure we actually agree here, but again, to say a situation was not reported accurately leaves the door open to saying that an event may not have occurred at all. Consider Luke 24:1 and John 20:1. Luke has the women arriving at the tomb “at early dawn” (Luke 24:1, English Standard Version), while John has Mary Magdalene arriving at the tomb “while it was still dark” (John 20:1, ESV). This presents an apparent/possible discrepancy. The situation is women arriving at the tomb, the timing of the arrival is a detail. To say the situation may not have been reported accurately leaves open too wide a door for my liking. To say the detail (time of day) may not have been reported accurately is much better, and full inerrancy allows for this. To take this just a bit further, is anything reported inaccurately in the Bible? If I say, “We arrived at the cabin at dawn,” and my friend says, “when we got there it was still dark,” and I later write “we arrived at dawn” in my journal, did I report inaccurately?” Was my friend wrong? To the eyewitnesses it was accurate, and to the writer it was accurate in spite of an apparent discrepancy between the two reports. If this is the standard, can we consider anything in the Bible to have been reported inaccurately? Inaccuracy suggests incorrect or false, yet to the eyewitnesses and the writer, the event was reported and recorded accurately.
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