Definitions help
Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 11:11AM I promise to move on to other topics - I promise! - but I found this definition of inerrancy by Millard Erickson really helpful:
The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time of writing, in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms. (Christian Theology)
I wonder how much of the debate about inerrancy is because the bolded conditions aren't assumed in the discussion? Just wondering.
Everyone should recognize that in accordance with accepted forms of speech and custom a statement can be perfectly authentic and not yet pedantically precise. (John Murray)
There is a vast difference between exactness of statement, which includes an exhaustive rendering of details, an absolute literalness which the Scriptures never profess, and accuracy, on the other hand, which secures a correct statement of facts of principle intended to be affirmed. (B.B. Warfield)
Reader Comments (4)
Good stuff. I recently met with an agnostic lawyer who has questions about the reliability of Scripture. One of the things he cited was a comparison of the Synoptic accounts of the resurrection. I reread Erickson before the meeting and was helped considerably. See you at Lake Geneva?
Hey Chris: Absolutely. See you there.
Stan Grenz on the matter: http://books.google.com/books?id=NAPrXVh_56wC&pg=PA398&lpg=PA398&dq=verbal+plenary+inerrancy&source=web&ots=EjvJVuzFaP&sig=uNBPm0uFBvcTBxyFaCVKaa4UExc&hl=en" rel="nofollow">http://books.google.com/books?id=NAPrXVh_56wC&pg=PA398&lpg=PA398&dq=verbal+plenary+inerrancy&source=web&ots=EjvJVuzFaP&sig=uNBPm0uFBvcTBxyFaCVKaa4UExc&hl=en
That's really good, Mike. Thanks.