Comments on: A Different Take on Inerrancy http://www.christopherlayton.org/2008/03/14/a-different-take-on-inerrancy/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:44:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: bobby grow http://www.christopherlayton.org/2008/03/14/a-different-take-on-inerrancy/#comment-1725 bobby grow Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:19:05 +0000 http://www.christopherlayton.org/2008/03/14/a-different-take-on-inerrancy/#comment-1725 Hey Chris, nice piece. I think the language of inerrrancy certainly is defensive . . . and its origin and context bear witness to that. I've come to the conclusion, that as far as articulating a "positive" Christian bibliology, inerrancy just won't do---just as "higher criticism" won't do. When it comes to "defensive apologetics," I have no problem using the language of inerrancy. So we probably agree on this. Hey Chris,

nice piece. I think the language of inerrrancy certainly is defensive . . . and its origin and context bear witness to that. I’ve come to the conclusion, that as far as articulating a “positive” Christian bibliology, inerrancy just won’t do—just as “higher criticism” won’t do. When it comes to “defensive apologetics,” I have no problem using the language of inerrancy. So we probably agree on this.

]]> By: chris_layton http://www.christopherlayton.org/2008/03/14/a-different-take-on-inerrancy/#comment-1681 chris_layton Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:32:05 +0000 http://www.christopherlayton.org/2008/03/14/a-different-take-on-inerrancy/#comment-1681 A thought, Ben: From what vantage point do we "slice and dice" the text? What authorizes us to make some "slices" and not others? Where does that set of guidelines derive? If we find that the frameworks that guide the textual criticism work such that the text is rendered less-than Scripture, and hence, not normative then the perspective that the critic is taking is as an outsider to the Christian community (for whom the bible is Normative). This is, I think, the power of that last idea from Schmitt: if we find ourself in a position whereby the text does not have the last word, it is then not sovereign - not normative, and this ceases to be scripture for us. its in that case that this "Normative" language can functionally replace the inerrancy language. This is not going to work for apologetic tasks - but then again the inerrancy tact didn't either. A thought, Ben:
From what vantage point do we “slice and dice” the text? What authorizes us to make some “slices” and not others? Where does that set of guidelines derive? If we find that the frameworks that guide the textual criticism work such that the text is rendered less-than Scripture, and hence, not normative then the perspective that the critic is taking is as an outsider to the Christian community (for whom the bible is Normative). This is, I think, the power of that last idea from Schmitt: if we find ourself in a position whereby the text does not have the last word, it is then not sovereign - not normative, and this ceases to be scripture for us. its in that case that this “Normative” language can functionally replace the inerrancy language. This is not going to work for apologetic tasks - but then again the inerrancy tact didn’t either.

]]> By: Ben http://www.christopherlayton.org/2008/03/14/a-different-take-on-inerrancy/#comment-1680 Ben Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:06:13 +0000 http://www.christopherlayton.org/2008/03/14/a-different-take-on-inerrancy/#comment-1680 I agree that the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy is immature. Once you start talking about original autographs you have lost any practicality. I like the appeal to Scripture as our greatest authority or what is 'normative' for our community. This works great for theology but it makes things tougher in biblical studies because you have to deal with those that want to slice and dice the Bible and claim some sections more authoritative than others. I'm not sure what to do on that point. I agree that the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy is immature. Once you start talking about original autographs you have lost any practicality. I like the appeal to Scripture as our greatest authority or what is ‘normative’ for our community. This works great for theology but it makes things tougher in biblical studies because you have to deal with those that want to slice and dice the Bible and claim some sections more authoritative than others. I’m not sure what to do on that point.

]]>