Inerrancy Is Nonsense
Evangelical inerrantists are in the apostle Paul’s camp. They’re sinners (I Timothy 1:15). But contra Giberson, pointing out the mote in the inerrantist’s eye hardly constitutes a refutation of inerrancy. (A college student’s failure to find the derivative of a function doesn’t entail that calculus is a “gigantic anchor holding mathematicians back.”) So, what’s the real concern here?
Inerrancy is all about epistemology. Giberson knows this. He rejects “the ‘hypothesis’ of inerrancy [because it] has proven to be ‘degenerate’ because it is too difficult to apply, leads nowhere helpful, has to be propped up with all sorts of ad hoc additional assumptions . . . [and] turns out to lead to error.” It prevents Christians from holding “sensible positions” [emphasis mine] on many matters.
Giberson is probably right in thinking that his epistemology of sensibleness is incompatible with his understanding of inerrancy. Many inerrantists believe that Scripture teaches all sorts of nonsense, often on the basis of their commitment to the Bible’s being without error. It’s better to believe “sensible” things than nonsense. Therefore, inerrancy must go.
Whether evangelicals should pull up the anchor of inerrancy and set sail with Giberson turns on whether the epistemology of sensibleness should govern one’s approach to Scripture. Here’s why it shouldn’t.
Christianity is fundamentally a religion of nonsense. Does it make any sense to believe that the death of a first-century rabbi has any bearing on the resurrection of my body to eternal life? (Does it make any sense to believe in the resurrection of the body to eternal life, period!?) It is precisely the utterly fantastic nature of the “word of the cross” that led the apostle Paul to call it “foolishness” to the Greeks (I Corinthians 1:18-25). And as heirs of the disenchanted world of the Enlightenment, we are all, denizens of 21st century West, thoroughly Greek.
Giberson may be right in claiming that a commitment to inerrancy “requires the rejection and distortion of so much generally accepted knowledge that embracing it forces one onto an ideological Fantasy Island.” But aside from taking the epistemology of sensibleness as axiomatic, it does not follow from this observation that “Fantasy Island” is uninhabitable.
C.S. Lewis illustrates the logic of this point delightfully in a marvelous scene in The Silver Chair. Having been captured by the Lady of the Green Kirtle, the nefarious enchantchress of Underworld, Jill Pole, Eustace Scrubb, and Puddleglum the marsh-wiggle find themselves on the brink of falling under her epistemological spell. She tries to persuade them that Narnia, Aslan, and life above the surface in “Overland” is all illusory – not real, merely a fantasy. In a moment of fragile clarity, Puddleglum responds:
“Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.”
Of course, Giberson is undoubtedly right in pointing out that far too many self-professed inerrantists lack the humility of Puddleglum in their quests to set out in the darkness of inerrancy looking for a young earth, or the anti-Christ, or a biblical worldview. Far too many are just downright arrogant and mean-spirited.
But vice is no respecter of epistemological frameworks. Thus, the epistemology of sensibleness lends itself to being defended with as much “obnoxious vigor” as inerrancy. So, why favor inerrancy?
Besides the fact that Christianity is built on the rock of folly, inerrancy matters because at its best, it is designed to posture the reader in precisely the stance that Brown and Roberts so eloquently describe – standing “under” the text. At its core, inerrancy is a commitment to the idea that the Bible is truthful in all that it says. It is the spirit of the Psalmist who rejoices, “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul” (Psalm 19:7). One could almost think of inerrancy as an epistemological prayer: “Lord, help me to be faithful to understand all and only those truths expressed herein.”
In practice, this means that perceived errors (or conflicts between revealed and natural knowledge) should be treated neither as occasions for rejecting Scripture or nature nor as mere puzzles to be solved through interpretation and systematicity. Rather, perceived errors in the Bible should, first and foremost, drive readers to root out error in themselves (Psalm 139:23-24). In other words, the perception of error in Scripture (or of conflicts between revealed and natural knowledge) primarily signals that something is wrong with me.
Sadly, too many inerrantists lack the piety that is built into their epistemological stance – a piety that Augustine himself expressed in a letter to Jerome:
“For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS. is faulty or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it . . .”
To the extent that such piety has been lost among evangelicals in their clamor to defend the veracity of the Bible, rejection is not the remedy. Remedy rests in remembrance and recovery.
Perhaps it’s still premature to weigh anchor and “learn to sail” from the Fantasy Isle of Inerrancy. After all, there’s no assurance of better lands across the Ocean of Disenchantment.
I am not sure how to respond to the suggestion that Christians should not even try to be sensible. Or that inerrantists are in the apostle Paul’s camp, when he would never have placed himself in that camp. Or that the problems of inerrancy are but “motes” in our eyes. Ken Ham has a recent vintage dinosaur in his inerrant eye—much larger than a mote.
It seems to me that Christianity is about events and doctrines. Our question about events has to be “Did they happen?” Did God intervene in the course of events as stated in the Bible? Did God plant a garden in the east and place Adam in it? Did God flood the entire world? Were languages confounded at Babel? Did Jonah spend time inside a fish? Was Jesus born in Bethlehem? Did Jesus rise from the dead? And so on. Given that God’s action in the world may be supernatural and beyond our experience, divinely accomplished events may appear to be unreasonable, even absurd, although I think that latter term is too much of a copout meme for Christians. It may be unreasonable for a person to rise from the dead, and it may be unreasonable for a person to run a mile in four minutes. But, if enough observers validate those events, they become historical and, I would say, reasonable people should believe them.
What question do we ask about doctrines? Sarah Palin’s church in Wasilla believes in the doctrine of the “serpent seed” which says that Cain was the offspring of the serpent mating with Eve and that is where sin came from. The Nazarene church has a doctrine of entire sanctification that says people can have their sinful natures completely eradicated. One of my Pentecostal friends holds the doctrine that speaking in tongues is an essential part of salvation. Most Christians have a doctrine that Jesus was “fully human and fully divine.”
And then there are Christians who hold a doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy.
What do we respond to this? Obviously all doctrines cannot be true but, if we cannot use a sensible epistemology to winnow out the chaff, we are lost in a sea of contradictory nonsense.
Since doctrines are human inventions, what criteria should guide their production? How should doctrines be evaluated? Doctrines are not events that we accept or reject because of evidence. Doctrines, it seems to me, are like scientific theories—they are systematic and—dare I say?—sensible attempts to get at what is going on. I speak as a scientist when I say that theories in science are attempts to create the most reasonable interpretation of things that, as events, are quite unreasonable. Quantum Theory and the Big Bang Theory would be two examples. Such theories are validated by the way they illuminate the world and help it make sense, tying together otherwise disparate facts and observations.
As inerrancy is not an event, but rather an interpretation of an event—the production and nature of the Bible—it must not be allowed to hide its shortcomings under the cloak of absurdity. Inerrancy is a humanly created doctrine to explain something divine. And, like many things that humans create, it’s a self-serving muddle, a sort of textual narcissism that creates a distorted and strangely contrived view of reality.
I am not sure how to respond to the suggestion that Christians should not even try to be sensible. Or that inerrantists are in the apostle Paul’s camp, when he would never have placed himself in that camp. Or that the problems of inerrancy are but “motes” in our eyes. Ken Ham has a recent vintage dinosaur in his inerrant eye—much larger than a mote.
It seems to me that Christianity is about events and doctrines. Our question about events has to be “Did they happen?” Did God intervene in the course of events as stated in the Bible? Did God plant a garden in the east and place Adam in it? Did God flood the entire world? Were languages confounded at Babel? Did Jonah spend time inside a fish? Was Jesus born in Bethlehem? Did Jesus rise from the dead? And so on. Given that God’s action in the world may be supernatural and beyond our experience, divinely accomplished events may appear to be unreasonable, even absurd, although I think that latter term is too much of a copout meme for Christians. It may be unreasonable for a person to rise from the dead, and it may be unreasonable for a person to run a mile in four minutes. But, if enough observers validate those events, they become historical and, I would say, reasonable people should believe them.
What question do we ask about doctrines? Sarah Palin’s church in Wasilla believes in the doctrine of the “serpent seed” which says that Cain was the offspring of the serpent mating with Eve and that is where sin came from. The Nazarene church has a doctrine of entire sanctification that says people can have their sinful natures completely eradicated. One of my Pentecostal friends holds the doctrine that speaking in tongues is an essential part of salvation. Most Christians have a doctrine that Jesus was “fully human and fully divine.”
And then there are Christians who hold a doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy.
What do we respond to this? Obviously all doctrines cannot be true but, if we cannot use a sensible epistemology to winnow out the chaff, we are lost in a sea of contradictory nonsense.
Since doctrines are human inventions, what criteria should guide their production? How should doctrines be evaluated? Doctrines are not events that we accept or reject because of evidence. Doctrines, it seems to me, are like scientific theories—they are systematic and—dare I say?—sensible attempts to get at what is going on. I speak as a scientist when I say that theories in science are attempts to create the most reasonable interpretation of things that, as events, are quite unreasonable. Quantum Theory and the Big Bang Theory would be two examples. Such theories are validated by the way they illuminate the world and help it make sense, tying together otherwise disparate facts and observations.
As inerrancy is not an event, but rather an interpretation of an event—the production and nature of the Bible—it must not be allowed to hide its shortcomings under the cloak of absurdity. Inerrancy is a humanly created doctrine to explain something divine. And, like many things that humans create, it’s a self-serving muddle, a sort of textual narcissism that creates a distorted and strangely contrived view of reality.
I am not sure how to respond to the suggestion that Christians should not even try to be sensible. Or that inerrantists are in the apostle Paul’s camp, when he would never have placed himself in that camp. Or that the problems of inerrancy are but “motes” in our eyes. Ken Ham has a recent vintage dinosaur in his inerrant eye—much larger than a mote.
It seems to me that Christianity is about events and doctrines. Our question about events has to be “Did they happen?” Did God intervene in the course of events as stated in the Bible? Did God plant a garden in the east and place Adam in it? Did God flood the entire world? Were languages confounded at Babel? Did Jonah spend time inside a fish? Was Jesus born in Bethlehem? Did Jesus rise from the dead? And so on. Given that God’s action in the world may be supernatural and beyond our experience, divinely accomplished events may appear to be unreasonable, even absurd, although I think that latter term is too much of a copout meme for Christians. It may be unreasonable for a person to rise from the dead, and it may be unreasonable for a person to run a mile in four minutes. But, if enough observers validate those events, they become historical and, I would say, reasonable people should believe them.
What question do we ask about doctrines? Sarah Palin’s church in Wasilla believes in the doctrine of the “serpent seed” which says that Cain was the offspring of the serpent mating with Eve and that is where sin came from. The Nazarene church has a doctrine of entire sanctification that says people can have their sinful natures completely eradicated. One of my Pentecostal friends holds the doctrine that speaking in tongues is an essential part of salvation. Most Christians have a doctrine that Jesus was “fully human and fully divine.”
And then there are Christians who hold a doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy.
What do we respond to this? Obviously all doctrines cannot be true but, if we cannot use a sensible epistemology to winnow out the chaff, we are lost in a sea of contradictory nonsense.
Since doctrines are human inventions, what criteria should guide their production? How should doctrines be evaluated? Doctrines are not events that we accept or reject because of evidence. Doctrines, it seems to me, are like scientific theories—they are systematic and—dare I say?—sensible attempts to get at what is going on. I speak as a scientist when I say that theories in science are attempts to create the most reasonable interpretation of things that, as events, are quite unreasonable. Quantum Theory and the Big Bang Theory would be two examples. Such theories are validated by the way they illuminate the world and help it make sense, tying together otherwise disparate facts and observations.
As inerrancy is not an event, but rather an interpretation of an event—the production and nature of the Bible—it must not be allowed to hide its shortcomings under the cloak of absurdity. Inerrancy is a humanly created doctrine to explain something divine. And, like many things that humans create, it’s a self-serving muddle, a sort of textual narcissism that creates a distorted and strangely contrived view of reality.
Justin seems to be saying nothing needs to have "actually happened" for biblical revelation to be true. The only necessary events are the recording and preservation of a witness to a message whose truth transcends facts which are largely inaccessible an not ultimately verifiable in any case. A less generous modern way of putting this would be to say that Christianity may derive from a kind of mass hysteria, but its truth is verified by the content not the medium of the message.
Karl seems to believe the truth of the message needs to be grounded plausibly in historical facts, or at least the (however mediated) testimony of a sufficient number of people who seem to be saying the sea was indeed parted, the waves walked on, the dead restored to life, etc. Belief in those things is sensible, or more sensible, than belief that the universe and life on earth was created over the course of a few days.
If I have this right, it seems to me that Karl's idea of rational, sensible, or warranted belief makes close to arbitrary distinctions about what is more and less sensible, more and less factual. I suspect one can only hold this position from a pre-existing faith position that will not be affected by the discovery of new and stronger facts in evolutionary biology and genetics, or an emerging consensus that the exodus is a substantial fiction.
Looking at things this way, Justin's position actually seems like a better basis for openness to questions and new knowledge that seems to trouble received knowledge. That said, as Justin tacitly acknowledges, the model for doing this (Augustine, Jerome, etc.) has nothing to do with the 20th century Presbyterian doctrine of inerrrancy — or the idea that the rock Christ founded his church on was named "folly." Why defend inerrancy at all then, especially when it is largely a mechanism for trying to do without tradition or a strong ecclesiology?
Karl is right to see that "inerrancy" is historically and culturally tied to an unreasonable and failed war against "Darwinism" and modern critical thought in general, but he seems not to see that he shares with these inerrantists their fatal compromise with modernity. In trying to reserve a way for Christian doctrines to be "sensible" or rational, one becomes a rationalist and usually a positivist who believes in one religion over others supposedly because of "the facts."
Justin seems to be saying nothing needs to have "actually happened" for biblical revelation to be true. The only necessary events are the recording and preservation of a witness to a message whose truth transcends facts which are largely inaccessible an not ultimately verifiable in any case. A less generous modern way of putting this would be to say that Christianity may derive from a kind of mass hysteria, but its truth is verified by the content not the medium of the message.
Karl seems to believe the truth of the message needs to be grounded plausibly in historical facts, or at least the (however mediated) testimony of a sufficient number of people who seem to be saying the sea was indeed parted, the waves walked on, the dead restored to life, etc. Belief in those things is sensible, or more sensible, than belief that the universe and life on earth was created over the course of a few days.
If I have this right, it seems to me that Karl's idea of rational, sensible, or warranted belief makes close to arbitrary distinctions about what is more and less sensible, more and less factual. I suspect one can only hold this position from a pre-existing faith position that will not be affected by the discovery of new and stronger facts in evolutionary biology and genetics, or an emerging consensus that the exodus is a substantial fiction.
Looking at things this way, Justin's position actually seems like a better basis for openness to questions and new knowledge that seems to trouble received knowledge. That said, as Justin tacitly acknowledges, the model for doing this (Augustine, Jerome, etc.) has nothing to do with the 20th century Presbyterian doctrine of inerrrancy — or the idea that the rock Christ founded his church on was named "folly." Why defend inerrancy at all then, especially when it is largely a mechanism for trying to do without tradition or a strong ecclesiology?
Karl is right to see that "inerrancy" is historically and culturally tied to an unreasonable and failed war against "Darwinism" and modern critical thought in general, but he seems not to see that he shares with these inerrantists their fatal compromise with modernity. In trying to reserve a way for Christian doctrines to be "sensible" or rational, one becomes a rationalist and usually a positivist who believes in one religion over others supposedly because of "the facts."
Justin seems to be saying nothing needs to have "actually happened" for biblical revelation to be true. The only necessary events are the recording and preservation of a witness to a message whose truth transcends facts which are largely inaccessible an not ultimately verifiable in any case. A less generous modern way of putting this would be to say that Christianity may derive from a kind of mass hysteria, but its truth is verified by the content not the medium of the message.
Karl seems to believe the truth of the message needs to be grounded plausibly in historical facts, or at least the (however mediated) testimony of a sufficient number of people who seem to be saying the sea was indeed parted, the waves walked on, the dead restored to life, etc. Belief in those things is sensible, or more sensible, than belief that the universe and life on earth was created over the course of a few days.
If I have this right, it seems to me that Karl's idea of rational, sensible, or warranted belief makes close to arbitrary distinctions about what is more and less sensible, more and less factual. I suspect one can only hold this position from a pre-existing faith position that will not be affected by the discovery of new and stronger facts in evolutionary biology and genetics, or an emerging consensus that the exodus is a substantial fiction.
Looking at things this way, Justin's position actually seems like a better basis for openness to questions and new knowledge that seems to trouble received knowledge. That said, as Justin tacitly acknowledges, the model for doing this (Augustine, Jerome, etc.) has nothing to do with the 20th century Presbyterian doctrine of inerrrancy — or the idea that the rock Christ founded his church on was named "folly." Why defend inerrancy at all then, especially when it is largely a mechanism for trying to do without tradition or a strong ecclesiology?
Karl is right to see that "inerrancy" is historically and culturally tied to an unreasonable and failed war against "Darwinism" and modern critical thought in general, but he seems not to see that he shares with these inerrantists their fatal compromise with modernity. In trying to reserve a way for Christian doctrines to be "sensible" or rational, one becomes a rationalist and usually a positivist who believes in one religion over others supposedly because of "the facts."
For Giberson, inerrancy seems to be a position only espoused by simpleton evangelicals in the most naive sort of manner (obviously, there are plenty of those out there who fit the bill). But making Tim LaHaye or James Dobson or Ken Ham….Or in the comments here, even Sarah Palin!….Into foils to promote his argument….Well, Giberson is either ignorant of the true range of scholarly-but still traditional/conservative-evangelical works that have been immensely written over time….Or he is being purposely disingenuous in order to rheotorically push his anti-inerrancy platform.
When I was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School back in the '90s, I took numerous classes with now deceased icons of the glory days of American evangelicalism….Harold O.J. Brown….Kenneth Kantzer…..Carl F.H. Henry….Some of my other profs are still alive (e.g. Douglas Moo, D.A. Carson, etc.). In those classes, we painstakingly analyzed every possible angle and side of the inerrancy issue….The critics (i..e liberals, the Neo-Orthodox, newer evangelicals critical of inerrancy, etc.)….We looked at a gazillion nuances….Qualifications (e.g. an obvious one being that the original manuscripts of Scripture are no longer extant)…Implications….Hermeneutics….The self-attestation of the Scriptures via the words of Christ Himself and the apostles….The historic understanding of the catholic Church on the issue from the era of the Church Fathers through the Middle Ages to the Reformation and up to the rise of the Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism….You name it. Inerrancy still was affirmed at the end of the day (at least by me, anyhow….I don't know about all of my classmates)….But at a level of sophistication and theological robustness far removed from a straw man, country bumpkin, knee-jerk sort of perspective (which Giberson seems to paint as THE ONLY understanding of inerrancy out there).
There is a whole raft of evangelical and conservative Protestant scholarship in defense of biblical inerrancy from the 20th-century to the present that's simply being ignored here….E.g. The substantive monographs produced by the inter-denominational, International Council on Biblical Inerrancy of the 1970s and 1980s….At least 3 sophisticated collections of essays spanning most of the 20th century from the faculty members of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia….Solid biblical and historical studies on the subject from confessional Lutherans (e.g. Robert Preus, John Warwick Montgomery)….And many, many more.
If one is going to argue persuasively and comprehensively for the cause of a biblical errancy/Neo-Orthodox position (as Giberson seems to be attempting), then there will need to be plenty of time and energy spent in rebuttal of the vast body of conservative Protestant/evangelical scholarship produced in just the past 70 years or so in defense of the traditional inerrancy position.
For Giberson, inerrancy seems to be a position only espoused by simpleton evangelicals in the most naive sort of manner (obviously, there are plenty of those out there who fit the bill). But making Tim LaHaye or James Dobson or Ken Ham….Or in the comments here, even Sarah Palin!….Into foils to promote his argument….Well, Giberson is either ignorant of the true range of scholarly-but still traditional/conservative-evangelical works that have been immensely written over time….Or he is being purposely disingenuous in order to rheotorically push his anti-inerrancy platform.
When I was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School back in the '90s, I took numerous classes with now deceased icons of the glory days of American evangelicalism….Harold O.J. Brown….Kenneth Kantzer…..Carl F.H. Henry….Some of my other profs are still alive (e.g. Douglas Moo, D.A. Carson, etc.). In those classes, we painstakingly analyzed every possible angle and side of the inerrancy issue….The critics (i..e liberals, the Neo-Orthodox, newer evangelicals critical of inerrancy, etc.)….We looked at a gazillion nuances….Qualifications (e.g. an obvious one being that the original manuscripts of Scripture are no longer extant)…Implications….Hermeneutics….The self-attestation of the Scriptures via the words of Christ Himself and the apostles….The historic understanding of the catholic Church on the issue from the era of the Church Fathers through the Middle Ages to the Reformation and up to the rise of the Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism….You name it. Inerrancy still was affirmed at the end of the day (at least by me, anyhow….I don't know about all of my classmates)….But at a level of sophistication and theological robustness far removed from a straw man, country bumpkin, knee-jerk sort of perspective (which Giberson seems to paint as THE ONLY understanding of inerrancy out there).
There is a whole raft of evangelical and conservative Protestant scholarship in defense of biblical inerrancy from the 20th-century to the present that's simply being ignored here….E.g. The substantive monographs produced by the inter-denominational, International Council on Biblical Inerrancy of the 1970s and 1980s….At least 3 sophisticated collections of essays spanning most of the 20th century from the faculty members of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia….Solid biblical and historical studies on the subject from confessional Lutherans (e.g. Robert Preus, John Warwick Montgomery)….And many, many more.
If one is going to argue persuasively and comprehensively for the cause of a biblical errancy/Neo-Orthodox position (as Giberson seems to be attempting), then there will need to be plenty of time and energy spent in rebuttal of the vast body of conservative Protestant/evangelical scholarship produced in just the past 70 years or so in defense of the traditional inerrancy position.
For Giberson, inerrancy seems to be a position only espoused by simpleton evangelicals in the most naive sort of manner (obviously, there are plenty of those out there who fit the bill). But making Tim LaHaye or James Dobson or Ken Ham….Or in the comments here, even Sarah Palin!….Into foils to promote his argument….Well, Giberson is either ignorant of the true range of scholarly-but still traditional/conservative-evangelical works that have been immensely written over time….Or he is being purposely disingenuous in order to rheotorically push his anti-inerrancy platform.
When I was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School back in the '90s, I took numerous classes with now deceased icons of the glory days of American evangelicalism….Harold O.J. Brown….Kenneth Kantzer…..Carl F.H. Henry….Some of my other profs are still alive (e.g. Douglas Moo, D.A. Carson, etc.). In those classes, we painstakingly analyzed every possible angle and side of the inerrancy issue….The critics (i..e liberals, the Neo-Orthodox, newer evangelicals critical of inerrancy, etc.)….We looked at a gazillion nuances….Qualifications (e.g. an obvious one being that the original manuscripts of Scripture are no longer extant)…Implications….Hermeneutics….The self-attestation of the Scriptures via the words of Christ Himself and the apostles….The historic understanding of the catholic Church on the issue from the era of the Church Fathers through the Middle Ages to the Reformation and up to the rise of the Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism….You name it. Inerrancy still was affirmed at the end of the day (at least by me, anyhow….I don't know about all of my classmates)….But at a level of sophistication and theological robustness far removed from a straw man, country bumpkin, knee-jerk sort of perspective (which Giberson seems to paint as THE ONLY understanding of inerrancy out there).
There is a whole raft of evangelical and conservative Protestant scholarship in defense of biblical inerrancy from the 20th-century to the present that's simply being ignored here….E.g. The substantive monographs produced by the inter-denominational, International Council on Biblical Inerrancy of the 1970s and 1980s….At least 3 sophisticated collections of essays spanning most of the 20th century from the faculty members of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia….Solid biblical and historical studies on the subject from confessional Lutherans (e.g. Robert Preus, John Warwick Montgomery)….And many, many more.
If one is going to argue persuasively and comprehensively for the cause of a biblical errancy/Neo-Orthodox position (as Giberson seems to be attempting), then there will need to be plenty of time and energy spent in rebuttal of the vast body of conservative Protestant/evangelical scholarship produced in just the past 70 years or so in defense of the traditional inerrancy position.
As a college student I was enamored of inerrancy. I had read J. Warwick Montgomery, Henry Morris, Josh McDowell, Harold Lindsell and other great champions of that doctrine. I am not sure what exactly demolished the doctrine in my mind but it was related to the view of science held by inerrantists. I am actually unaware of a single inerrantist who holds what I would call a proper respect for science.
Let me explain. Virtually all inerrantists–with a few notable exceptions, like B. B. Warfield–reject much of modern science. The correlation between "inerrantist" and "creationist" is very high, close to 100%. Creationism, however, can only be embraced if you believe there is something deeply wrong with modern science. Most inerrantists have very dim views of science, and most claim it is a largely fraudulent body of knowledge based on a false foundation of secularism. The argument goes like this: The scientist starts his or her work with the false assumption that there is no God and makes the data fit the assumption. The exercise is totally bogus, since the data clearly don't fit very well.
To hold this view, inerrantists/creationists impute what I think are preposterous motivations to the scientific community–motivations that lead it to reject the obvious truth that humans did not evolve, that we share nothing of consequence with other life forms, that human sin is not the source of death and evil in the world. In short, inerrantists have an inadequate view of science, and an inappropriately negative view of scientists.
En route to my degree in physics I developed great respect for the integrity of science and came to realize that the scientific enterprise was dedicated to discovering the truth and that it was very good at finding the truth.
So I had to reject inerrancy. There simply was no way to respect science and be an inerrantist. In hindsight, I have come to understand that, practically speaking there has actually never been an inerrantist who truly respected science. We bandy about B. B. Warfield because he wasn't hostile to evolution, but the evolution he was willing to consider was not Darwin's theory and he made it clear that he would not accept any version that even comes close to what we have today.
I no longer find the arguments of Montgomery, Henry, Lindsell, etc compelling. In my view they have been fully refuted already and there is no work needing to be done. I believe a close examination of the views of these champions of inerrancy will reveal that their inerrancy requires the rejection of modern science–evolution, the big bang, genetics. I suggest that their work is no longer relevant in this century and belongs to a past when it was possible to disbelieve in evolution and the big bang.
As a college student I was enamored of inerrancy. I had read J. Warwick Montgomery, Henry Morris, Josh McDowell, Harold Lindsell and other great champions of that doctrine. I am not sure what exactly demolished the doctrine in my mind but it was related to the view of science held by inerrantists. I am actually unaware of a single inerrantist who holds what I would call a proper respect for science.
Let me explain. Virtually all inerrantists–with a few notable exceptions, like B. B. Warfield–reject much of modern science. The correlation between "inerrantist" and "creationist" is very high, close to 100%. Creationism, however, can only be embraced if you believe there is something deeply wrong with modern science. Most inerrantists have very dim views of science, and most claim it is a largely fraudulent body of knowledge based on a false foundation of secularism. The argument goes like this: The scientist starts his or her work with the false assumption that there is no God and makes the data fit the assumption. The exercise is totally bogus, since the data clearly don't fit very well.
To hold this view, inerrantists/creationists impute what I think are preposterous motivations to the scientific community–motivations that lead it to reject the obvious truth that humans did not evolve, that we share nothing of consequence with other life forms, that human sin is not the source of death and evil in the world. In short, inerrantists have an inadequate view of science, and an inappropriately negative view of scientists.
En route to my degree in physics I developed great respect for the integrity of science and came to realize that the scientific enterprise was dedicated to discovering the truth and that it was very good at finding the truth.
So I had to reject inerrancy. There simply was no way to respect science and be an inerrantist. In hindsight, I have come to understand that, practically speaking there has actually never been an inerrantist who truly respected science. We bandy about B. B. Warfield because he wasn't hostile to evolution, but the evolution he was willing to consider was not Darwin's theory and he made it clear that he would not accept any version that even comes close to what we have today.
I no longer find the arguments of Montgomery, Henry, Lindsell, etc compelling. In my view they have been fully refuted already and there is no work needing to be done. I believe a close examination of the views of these champions of inerrancy will reveal that their inerrancy requires the rejection of modern science–evolution, the big bang, genetics. I suggest that their work is no longer relevant in this century and belongs to a past when it was possible to disbelieve in evolution and the big bang.
As a college student I was enamored of inerrancy. I had read J. Warwick Montgomery, Henry Morris, Josh McDowell, Harold Lindsell and other great champions of that doctrine. I am not sure what exactly demolished the doctrine in my mind but it was related to the view of science held by inerrantists. I am actually unaware of a single inerrantist who holds what I would call a proper respect for science.
Let me explain. Virtually all inerrantists–with a few notable exceptions, like B. B. Warfield–reject much of modern science. The correlation between "inerrantist" and "creationist" is very high, close to 100%. Creationism, however, can only be embraced if you believe there is something deeply wrong with modern science. Most inerrantists have very dim views of science, and most claim it is a largely fraudulent body of knowledge based on a false foundation of secularism. The argument goes like this: The scientist starts his or her work with the false assumption that there is no God and makes the data fit the assumption. The exercise is totally bogus, since the data clearly don't fit very well.
To hold this view, inerrantists/creationists impute what I think are preposterous motivations to the scientific community–motivations that lead it to reject the obvious truth that humans did not evolve, that we share nothing of consequence with other life forms, that human sin is not the source of death and evil in the world. In short, inerrantists have an inadequate view of science, and an inappropriately negative view of scientists.
En route to my degree in physics I developed great respect for the integrity of science and came to realize that the scientific enterprise was dedicated to discovering the truth and that it was very good at finding the truth.
So I had to reject inerrancy. There simply was no way to respect science and be an inerrantist. In hindsight, I have come to understand that, practically speaking there has actually never been an inerrantist who truly respected science. We bandy about B. B. Warfield because he wasn't hostile to evolution, but the evolution he was willing to consider was not Darwin's theory and he made it clear that he would not accept any version that even comes close to what we have today.
I no longer find the arguments of Montgomery, Henry, Lindsell, etc compelling. In my view they have been fully refuted already and there is no work needing to be done. I believe a close examination of the views of these champions of inerrancy will reveal that their inerrancy requires the rejection of modern science–evolution, the big bang, genetics. I suggest that their work is no longer relevant in this century and belongs to a past when it was possible to disbelieve in evolution and the big bang.
Giberson employs the term "science" in a facile manner to imply that it has an agreed-upon, unitary understanding and usage. His argument seems to be that so-called "science" makes biblical inerrancy untenable and obsolete.
But one could ask, "Whose science?" That of militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins? Young-earth creationists? Conservative Christians who also embrace an ancient earth (ala Augustine) and many aspects of evolutionary theory? The conservative Anglican Alister McGrath, while not a strict inerrantist, nevertheless, was a former atheist with advanced training in the sciences. Yet, he now has a high view of Scripture that mostly matches up with those of thoughtful inerrantists.
Giberson seems unaware that there are many options available when it comes to the understanding of "science."
I personally embrace an ancient earth….I have no problems with a "Big Bang" understanding of the origins of the universe…I embrace many aspects of evolutionary theory.
Yet, I still identify myself as a biblical inerrantist…..My confidence in the complete trustworthiness and authority of Scripture is in no way threatened by such "Science" (as Giberson seems to say it should be so threatened). And my position is not a unique one in the world of conservative Christianity.
I wonder if Giberson's understanding of "science" more closely resembles that of the New Atheism crowd (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Hawking)….I.e. "Science" debunks the Christian faith….And supernatural reality altogether.
Couldn't someone turn around this understanding of "science" on Giberson….And ask, "Why are you writing for a blog that is meant to be an intra-evangelical discussion?" Giberson's understanding of science should consistently cause him to ditch the evangelical label altogether….I.e. in favor of a host of possible competing religious/philosophical options: e.g. Deism, skepticism, agnosticism, or atheism.
But maintaining any sort of approximation of historic, orthodox Christianity would seem to be ruled out, since "science" now seems to debunk all of that…After all, any "science"-oriented person knows that seas don't part due to raised staffs….People don't walk on water….And certainly, no one rises from the dead. In fact, belief in invisible deities that "science" can't demonstrate is certainly evidence of mental instability….Right?
Giberson employs the term "science" in a facile manner to imply that it has an agreed-upon, unitary understanding and usage. His argument seems to be that so-called "science" makes biblical inerrancy untenable and obsolete.
But one could ask, "Whose science?" That of militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins? Young-earth creationists? Conservative Christians who also embrace an ancient earth (ala Augustine) and many aspects of evolutionary theory? The conservative Anglican Alister McGrath, while not a strict inerrantist, nevertheless, was a former atheist with advanced training in the sciences. Yet, he now has a high view of Scripture that mostly matches up with those of thoughtful inerrantists.
Giberson seems unaware that there are many options available when it comes to the understanding of "science."
I personally embrace an ancient earth….I have no problems with a "Big Bang" understanding of the origins of the universe…I embrace many aspects of evolutionary theory.
Yet, I still identify myself as a biblical inerrantist…..My confidence in the complete trustworthiness and authority of Scripture is in no way threatened by such "Science" (as Giberson seems to say it should be so threatened). And my position is not a unique one in the world of conservative Christianity.
I wonder if Giberson's understanding of "science" more closely resembles that of the New Atheism crowd (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Hawking)….I.e. "Science" debunks the Christian faith….And supernatural reality altogether.
Couldn't someone turn around this understanding of "science" on Giberson….And ask, "Why are you writing for a blog that is meant to be an intra-evangelical discussion?" Giberson's understanding of science should consistently cause him to ditch the evangelical label altogether….I.e. in favor of a host of possible competing religious/philosophical options: e.g. Deism, skepticism, agnosticism, or atheism.
But maintaining any sort of approximation of historic, orthodox Christianity would seem to be ruled out, since "science" now seems to debunk all of that…After all, any "science"-oriented person knows that seas don't part due to raised staffs….People don't walk on water….And certainly, no one rises from the dead. In fact, belief in invisible deities that "science" can't demonstrate is certainly evidence of mental instability….Right?
Giberson employs the term "science" in a facile manner to imply that it has an agreed-upon, unitary understanding and usage. His argument seems to be that so-called "science" makes biblical inerrancy untenable and obsolete.
But one could ask, "Whose science?" That of militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins? Young-earth creationists? Conservative Christians who also embrace an ancient earth (ala Augustine) and many aspects of evolutionary theory? The conservative Anglican Alister McGrath, while not a strict inerrantist, nevertheless, was a former atheist with advanced training in the sciences. Yet, he now has a high view of Scripture that mostly matches up with those of thoughtful inerrantists.
Giberson seems unaware that there are many options available when it comes to the understanding of "science."
I personally embrace an ancient earth….I have no problems with a "Big Bang" understanding of the origins of the universe…I embrace many aspects of evolutionary theory.
Yet, I still identify myself as a biblical inerrantist…..My confidence in the complete trustworthiness and authority of Scripture is in no way threatened by such "Science" (as Giberson seems to say it should be so threatened). And my position is not a unique one in the world of conservative Christianity.
I wonder if Giberson's understanding of "science" more closely resembles that of the New Atheism crowd (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Hawking)….I.e. "Science" debunks the Christian faith….And supernatural reality altogether.
Couldn't someone turn around this understanding of "science" on Giberson….And ask, "Why are you writing for a blog that is meant to be an intra-evangelical discussion?" Giberson's understanding of science should consistently cause him to ditch the evangelical label altogether….I.e. in favor of a host of possible competing religious/philosophical options: e.g. Deism, skepticism, agnosticism, or atheism.
But maintaining any sort of approximation of historic, orthodox Christianity would seem to be ruled out, since "science" now seems to debunk all of that…After all, any "science"-oriented person knows that seas don't part due to raised staffs….People don't walk on water….And certainly, no one rises from the dead. In fact, belief in invisible deities that "science" can't demonstrate is certainly evidence of mental instability….Right?
I wonder where to even begin responding to these comments. I might start by encouraging Henry to read a couple of my books–there are nine to choose from. And maybe a few of my hundreds of blogs on the Huffington Post and elsewhere. Or my debates with atheists like Jerry Coyne. Or my exchanges with Ken Ham on beliefnet, or Bill Dembski on Patheos. And then decide if he really wants to continue using "unaware" to describe me. Every comment with which he is presuming to enlighten me is one that I have encountered many times.
Let me start with this paragraph, in which Henry suggests that there are various "sciences" to choose from:
[The science] of militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins? Young-earth creationists? Conservative Christians who also embrace an ancient earth (ala Augustine) and many aspects of evolutionary theory? The conservative Anglican Alister McGrath, while not a strict inerrantist, nevertheless, was a former atheist with advanced training in the sciences. Yet, he now has a high view of Scripture that mostly matches up with those of thoughtful inerrantists.
Richard Dawkins does not speak as a scientist publicly and few in the scientific community consider him their spokesperson. He speaks as an atheist who believes that science supports his worldview and he has admitted that much of what he says is philosophy. So let us hear no more of "Richard Dawkins' science."
And young earth creationists? They have no science. They have a collection of 18th and 19th century notions, long abandoned by the scientific community–and there is such a community–that they are trying to keep alive with a collection of preposterous non-scientific claims, like the decay of the speed of light, the incompatibility of thermodynamics and evolution, or the unreliability of radioactive dating.
Now, for Alister McGrath: he most certainly does NOT hold views of science common to inerrantists. And he is not an inerrantist. So how is he relevant? Alister–who I know fairly well–is as concerned as I am about the folly of inerrancy.
Henry then writes: "I personally embrace an ancient earth….I have no problems with a "Big Bang" understanding of the origins of the universe…I embrace many aspects of evolutionary theory.
Yet, I still identify myself as a biblical inerrantist…..My confidence in the complete trustworthiness and authority of Scripture is in no way threatened by such "Science" (as Giberson seems to say it should be so threatened)."
I can only say to this that either Henry has not thought very deeply about these issues, or he stands alone among millions of inerrantists in his ability to reconcile science and inerrancy. I suspect that there are some central ideas of evolution that Henry rejects because of his inerrancy.
As for my stance via the label "evangelicalism," I will repeat what I said at greater length in my first post: I don't like it anymore as it is now mainly a political label.
I wonder where to even begin responding to these comments. I might start by encouraging Henry to read a couple of my books–there are nine to choose from. And maybe a few of my hundreds of blogs on the Huffington Post and elsewhere. Or my debates with atheists like Jerry Coyne. Or my exchanges with Ken Ham on beliefnet, or Bill Dembski on Patheos. And then decide if he really wants to continue using "unaware" to describe me. Every comment with which he is presuming to enlighten me is one that I have encountered many times.
Let me start with this paragraph, in which Henry suggests that there are various "sciences" to choose from:
[The science] of militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins? Young-earth creationists? Conservative Christians who also embrace an ancient earth (ala Augustine) and many aspects of evolutionary theory? The conservative Anglican Alister McGrath, while not a strict inerrantist, nevertheless, was a former atheist with advanced training in the sciences. Yet, he now has a high view of Scripture that mostly matches up with those of thoughtful inerrantists.
Richard Dawkins does not speak as a scientist publicly and few in the scientific community consider him their spokesperson. He speaks as an atheist who believes that science supports his worldview and he has admitted that much of what he says is philosophy. So let us hear no more of "Richard Dawkins' science."
And young earth creationists? They have no science. They have a collection of 18th and 19th century notions, long abandoned by the scientific community–and there is such a community–that they are trying to keep alive with a collection of preposterous non-scientific claims, like the decay of the speed of light, the incompatibility of thermodynamics and evolution, or the unreliability of radioactive dating.
Now, for Alister McGrath: he most certainly does NOT hold views of science common to inerrantists. And he is not an inerrantist. So how is he relevant? Alister–who I know fairly well–is as concerned as I am about the folly of inerrancy.
Henry then writes: "I personally embrace an ancient earth….I have no problems with a "Big Bang" understanding of the origins of the universe…I embrace many aspects of evolutionary theory.
Yet, I still identify myself as a biblical inerrantist…..My confidence in the complete trustworthiness and authority of Scripture is in no way threatened by such "Science" (as Giberson seems to say it should be so threatened)."
I can only say to this that either Henry has not thought very deeply about these issues, or he stands alone among millions of inerrantists in his ability to reconcile science and inerrancy. I suspect that there are some central ideas of evolution that Henry rejects because of his inerrancy.
As for my stance via the label "evangelicalism," I will repeat what I said at greater length in my first post: I don't like it anymore as it is now mainly a political label.
I wonder where to even begin responding to these comments. I might start by encouraging Henry to read a couple of my books–there are nine to choose from. And maybe a few of my hundreds of blogs on the Huffington Post and elsewhere. Or my debates with atheists like Jerry Coyne. Or my exchanges with Ken Ham on beliefnet, or Bill Dembski on Patheos. And then decide if he really wants to continue using "unaware" to describe me. Every comment with which he is presuming to enlighten me is one that I have encountered many times.
Let me start with this paragraph, in which Henry suggests that there are various "sciences" to choose from:
[The science] of militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins? Young-earth creationists? Conservative Christians who also embrace an ancient earth (ala Augustine) and many aspects of evolutionary theory? The conservative Anglican Alister McGrath, while not a strict inerrantist, nevertheless, was a former atheist with advanced training in the sciences. Yet, he now has a high view of Scripture that mostly matches up with those of thoughtful inerrantists.
Richard Dawkins does not speak as a scientist publicly and few in the scientific community consider him their spokesperson. He speaks as an atheist who believes that science supports his worldview and he has admitted that much of what he says is philosophy. So let us hear no more of "Richard Dawkins' science."
And young earth creationists? They have no science. They have a collection of 18th and 19th century notions, long abandoned by the scientific community–and there is such a community–that they are trying to keep alive with a collection of preposterous non-scientific claims, like the decay of the speed of light, the incompatibility of thermodynamics and evolution, or the unreliability of radioactive dating.
Now, for Alister McGrath: he most certainly does NOT hold views of science common to inerrantists. And he is not an inerrantist. So how is he relevant? Alister–who I know fairly well–is as concerned as I am about the folly of inerrancy.
Henry then writes: "I personally embrace an ancient earth….I have no problems with a "Big Bang" understanding of the origins of the universe…I embrace many aspects of evolutionary theory.
Yet, I still identify myself as a biblical inerrantist…..My confidence in the complete trustworthiness and authority of Scripture is in no way threatened by such "Science" (as Giberson seems to say it should be so threatened)."
I can only say to this that either Henry has not thought very deeply about these issues, or he stands alone among millions of inerrantists in his ability to reconcile science and inerrancy. I suspect that there are some central ideas of evolution that Henry rejects because of his inerrancy.
As for my stance via the label "evangelicalism," I will repeat what I said at greater length in my first post: I don't like it anymore as it is now mainly a political label.
This sort of online format is obviously not conducive to constructive dialogue. Talking past one another seems to be the main thing happening here.
Giberson never provides an answer to my question, "Whose science?" I threw out several options (most of which I don't subscribe to) as a means to tease out specific and real-life approaches to the topic. Giberson's response is basically to say that they're all wrong….That is, except for his approach. Obviously, my approach must certainly be wrong, since "I haven't thought through the issues." But Giberson has, of course.
I'm then told that if I want to discover the actual nature of Giberson's views on how the bible actually has any divine authority at all (which isn't clear from Giberson's responses on the threads here…I have yet to see any positive case for robust, biblical authority from him), then I need to seek out his authoritative books and prodigious blogs to get the answer.
I haven't kept up closely with McGrath's writings in a few years….But Giberson and I both concede that McGrath is not a strict "inerrantist" in the sense that an older-generation Harold Lindsell would be (and neither would I be, either).
But unless McGrath has lurched toward the theologically liberal side in recent years, the thrust of his writings clearly side with the cause of conservative Christianity overall. The top demographic purchasing his books over the years has been people self-identified as "evangelicals." McGrath would certainly be concerned with knee-jerk, non-reflective, and politicized conceptions of inerrancy…As would I be as well.
I don't typically identify myself as an American-style "evangelical" these days either….I'm a conservative Lutheran….Lutherans had claim originally to the label "evangelical" in Northern Europe….Then again, what serious Christian would not want to be identified as a "person of the Good News of eternal life through the person and work of Jesus Christ." So I'm comfortable being labeled an "evangelical" in this manner.
Here again, Giberson doesn't provide us with any constructive, alternative label or identity….He seems strangely out of place in a discussion thread geared toward intra-evangelical theological dialogue. Some of his comments could just as easily have been written by militant theological liberals or even agnostics. But I guess we're back to "I need to search out all of Giberson's numerous publications" to find the answers.
This sort of online format is obviously not conducive to constructive dialogue. Talking past one another seems to be the main thing happening here.
Giberson never provides an answer to my question, "Whose science?" I threw out several options (most of which I don't subscribe to) as a means to tease out specific and real-life approaches to the topic. Giberson's response is basically to say that they're all wrong….That is, except for his approach. Obviously, my approach must certainly be wrong, since "I haven't thought through the issues." But Giberson has, of course.
I'm then told that if I want to discover the actual nature of Giberson's views on how the bible actually has any divine authority at all (which isn't clear from Giberson's responses on the threads here…I have yet to see any positive case for robust, biblical authority from him), then I need to seek out his authoritative books and prodigious blogs to get the answer.
I haven't kept up closely with McGrath's writings in a few years….But Giberson and I both concede that McGrath is not a strict "inerrantist" in the sense that an older-generation Harold Lindsell would be (and neither would I be, either).
But unless McGrath has lurched toward the theologically liberal side in recent years, the thrust of his writings clearly side with the cause of conservative Christianity overall. The top demographic purchasing his books over the years has been people self-identified as "evangelicals." McGrath would certainly be concerned with knee-jerk, non-reflective, and politicized conceptions of inerrancy…As would I be as well.
I don't typically identify myself as an American-style "evangelical" these days either….I'm a conservative Lutheran….Lutherans had claim originally to the label "evangelical" in Northern Europe….Then again, what serious Christian would not want to be identified as a "person of the Good News of eternal life through the person and work of Jesus Christ." So I'm comfortable being labeled an "evangelical" in this manner.
Here again, Giberson doesn't provide us with any constructive, alternative label or identity….He seems strangely out of place in a discussion thread geared toward intra-evangelical theological dialogue. Some of his comments could just as easily have been written by militant theological liberals or even agnostics. But I guess we're back to "I need to search out all of Giberson's numerous publications" to find the answers.
This sort of online format is obviously not conducive to constructive dialogue. Talking past one another seems to be the main thing happening here.
Giberson never provides an answer to my question, "Whose science?" I threw out several options (most of which I don't subscribe to) as a means to tease out specific and real-life approaches to the topic. Giberson's response is basically to say that they're all wrong….That is, except for his approach. Obviously, my approach must certainly be wrong, since "I haven't thought through the issues." But Giberson has, of course.
I'm then told that if I want to discover the actual nature of Giberson's views on how the bible actually has any divine authority at all (which isn't clear from Giberson's responses on the threads here…I have yet to see any positive case for robust, biblical authority from him), then I need to seek out his authoritative books and prodigious blogs to get the answer.
I haven't kept up closely with McGrath's writings in a few years….But Giberson and I both concede that McGrath is not a strict "inerrantist" in the sense that an older-generation Harold Lindsell would be (and neither would I be, either).
But unless McGrath has lurched toward the theologically liberal side in recent years, the thrust of his writings clearly side with the cause of conservative Christianity overall. The top demographic purchasing his books over the years has been people self-identified as "evangelicals." McGrath would certainly be concerned with knee-jerk, non-reflective, and politicized conceptions of inerrancy…As would I be as well.
I don't typically identify myself as an American-style "evangelical" these days either….I'm a conservative Lutheran….Lutherans had claim originally to the label "evangelical" in Northern Europe….Then again, what serious Christian would not want to be identified as a "person of the Good News of eternal life through the person and work of Jesus Christ." So I'm comfortable being labeled an "evangelical" in this manner.
Here again, Giberson doesn't provide us with any constructive, alternative label or identity….He seems strangely out of place in a discussion thread geared toward intra-evangelical theological dialogue. Some of his comments could just as easily have been written by militant theological liberals or even agnostics. But I guess we're back to "I need to search out all of Giberson's numerous publications" to find the answers.
I feel Henry is being too rebarbative and polemical for such back -and-forth to be productive, so I'm not going to engage that. I just want to add that Karl's gracious responses in these comments help clarify my understanding of his thinking better. I perceive now that it is this close link between inerrancy and resistance to/ignorance of well-established science that makes inerrancy a costly and damaging mistake.
I feel Henry is being too rebarbative and polemical for such back -and-forth to be productive, so I'm not going to engage that. I just want to add that Karl's gracious responses in these comments help clarify my understanding of his thinking better. I perceive now that it is this close link between inerrancy and resistance to/ignorance of well-established science that makes inerrancy a costly and damaging mistake.
I feel Henry is being too rebarbative and polemical for such back -and-forth to be productive, so I'm not going to engage that. I just want to add that Karl's gracious responses in these comments help clarify my understanding of his thinking better. I perceive now that it is this close link between inerrancy and resistance to/ignorance of well-established science that makes inerrancy a costly and damaging mistake.