Download PDF Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan
As a result of this book Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan is offered by on-line, it will certainly ease you not to publish it. you can get the soft file of this Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan to save money in your computer system, gadget, as well as a lot more tools. It depends on your determination where and where you will read Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan One that you have to consistently remember is that reviewing publication Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan will certainly never ever end. You will have going to review various other publication after completing a publication, as well as it's constantly.
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan
Download PDF Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan
Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan Just how a basic idea by reading can enhance you to be an effective person? Checking out Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan is a very simple activity. But, just how can many people be so lazy to check out? They will certainly favor to invest their leisure time to chatting or socializing. When in fact, checking out Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan will certainly offer you a lot more probabilities to be effective finished with the efforts.
Undoubtedly, to boost your life top quality, every book Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan will certainly have their specific lesson. However, having certain understanding will make you really feel a lot more confident. When you really feel something take place to your life, often, checking out publication Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan can help you to make calmness. Is that your actual pastime? Sometimes yes, but occasionally will be not exactly sure. Your choice to read Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan as one of your reading books, could be your correct book to review now.
This is not around just how much this book Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan costs; it is not additionally concerning exactly what sort of publication you truly love to check out. It is regarding exactly what you could take as well as obtain from reading this Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan You could prefer to choose various other e-book; but, it matters not if you attempt to make this publication Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan as your reading option. You will not regret it. This soft file e-book Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan could be your great pal all the same.
By downloading this soft data book Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan in the on the internet link download, you are in the very first action right to do. This site truly supplies you ease of just how to get the most effective publication, from ideal seller to the new released publication. You can discover much more publications in this site by going to every web link that we provide. Among the collections, Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan is among the best collections to sell. So, the initial you obtain it, the very first you will get all good for this book Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology), By Zondervan
There is little doubt that the inerrancy of the Bible is a current and often contentious topic among evangelicals. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy represents a timely contribution by showcasing the spectrum of evangelical positions on inerrancy, facilitating understanding of these perspectives, particularly where and why they diverge.
Each essay in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy considers:
- the present context and the viability and relevance for the contemporary evangelical Christian witness;
- whether and to what extent Scripture teaches its own inerrancy;
- the position’s assumed/implied understandings of the nature of Scripture, God, and truth; and
- three difficult biblical texts, one that concerns intra-canonical contradictions, one that raises questions of theological plurality, and one that concerns historicity.
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy serves not only as a single-volume resource for surveying the current debate, but also as a catalyst both for understanding and advancing the conversation further. Contributors include Al Mohler, Kevin Vanhoozer, Michael Bird, Peter Enns, and John Franke.
- Sales Rank: #88873 in eBooks
- Published on: 2013-12-10
- Released on: 2013-12-10
- Format: Kindle eBook
About the Author
Stephen M. Garrett (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is an associate professor of Public Theology and the Philosophy of Religion in the Social Communications Institute at Lithuania University of Educational Sciences and serves as an Academic Fellow with Cooperative Studies. He is the author of God’s Beauty-in-Act: Participating in God’s Suffering Glory.
R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology. Considered a leader among American evangelicals by Time and Christianity Today magazines, Dr. Mohler can be heard on The Briefing a daily podcast which analyzes news and events from a Christian Worldview. He also writes a popular commentary on moral, cultural, and theological issues at albertmohler.com. He and his family live in Louisville, Kentucky.
Dr. Peter Enns (PhD. Harvard University) is a biblical scholar and teaches at Eastern University. He is author of several books including Exodus (NIV Application Commentary), Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, and The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins.
Michael F. Bird (PhD, University of Queensland) is lecturer in theology at Ridley Melbourne College of Mission and Ministry in Melbourne, Australia. He is the author of Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective, Evangelical Theology, Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Haircuts: A moderate Case for Gender Equality in Ministry and editor of The Apostle Paul: Four Views. He is also a co-blogger of the New Testament blog "Euangelion."
Kevin J. Vanhoozer (PhD, Cambridge University, England) is Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He is author of several books, including Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology, and Faith Speaking Understanding: Performing the Drama of Doctrine. He also serves on the editorial board of the International Journal of Systematic Theology and the Journal of Theological Interpretation.
Stanley N. Gundry is executive vice president and editor-in-chief for the Zondervan Corporation. He has been an influential figure in the Evangelical Theological Society, serving as president of ETS and on its executive committee, and is adjunct professor of Historical Theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. He is the author of seven books and has written many articles appearing in popular and academic periodicals.
Most helpful customer reviews
125 of 127 people found the following review helpful.
Great Discussion; a Must Have; But Plenty of Room Left for Exploration
By Amazon Consumer
Intro
I bought this book after reading Enns' "The Evolution of Adam" and "When God Spoke Greek," two very recent works that significantly challenge the "traditional" doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. I've read about a dozen other books on the subject (as my degrees and career are in this area) as well. But since my own view of the subject is undergoing reconstruction, it was delightful to have this volume come in the mail. It was very helpful - and in fact, I just finished reading it about an hour ago (read it in two days straight, phew! Christmas breaks are great).
The editors of the volume established an internal framework within which the contributors had to address: (1) the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy, (2) the historicity of the fall of Jericho (case study 1), (3) an alleged contradiction in the book of Acts (case study 2). This helped limit the discussion a bit and keep things focused. It appeared to work well.
What follows is a highly opinionated, but hopefully helpful review.
Specific Remarks
Mohler - His essay was well written, and had little "new" to say on the subject from his perspective. But it was interesting to me that Mohler's case appeared to be the weakest argued (because he's a rather bright guy). A large portion of his essay was dedicated to describing the historical background to the formation of the Chicago Statement, and the consequences of denying inerrancy (e.g., the fall of evangelicalism as we know it). I realize that he is presenting the "classic case for inerrancy," but it was still a bit musty, and he kind of set himself up for a royal smack-down - which virtually every other contributor delivered, fair and square. My reaction to the essay was almost identical to those who responded to it in the volume: Mohler is very dogmatic, alarmist, and frames the whole debate in an "us"-"them" mentality, as if the Chicago Statement was a kind of modern day gospel. In fact, not once does Mohler concede that anything could be improved in the Chicago statement (even though GK Beale in his Erosion of Inerrancy and Kevin Vanhoozer in his online essay on inerrancy both suggest some improvements to the document!).
He also reveals quite clearly that his version of "evangelicalism" is rather small (a white male American version). His critiques were nothing too special either - although his best was probably in response to Franke (it was probably the best critique of Franke, actually). I think the other contributors were too bewildered or out of their philosophical game to really attempt to refute Franke's epistemological argument, so bravo for Mohler's bravery there. But, to put it a bit harshly, Mohler often performed as one would expect a strong Southern Baptist fundamentalist seminary president to perform amidst those scholars who are encouraged (and allowed) to drink from larger academic wells: sort of beside himself. No doubt that those on Mohler's side would see this as "the man alone proclaiming the truth on a hill," but those who are more discerning may see it as it probably is: someone who is only widely read in a certain strand of evangelicalism and, almost like a fish out of his bowl, has trouble interacting with other universes of scholarship. That's not to say that Mohler didn't meaningfully interact with all views to some degree, he did; but his dogmatism (and political obligations of being a seminary president) limits his interactions to simplistic, aloof judgments, and to the "theologically correct" within his own constituency. But, like I said, that's what we might expect.
Enns - Enns is Enns. Persuasively written. Intentionally controversial. Independently minded. Insightful...yet errant. His essay was particularly powerful, as we would expect: Enns went from being a professor at one of the most conservative seminaries in the country (Westminster East) to now perhaps the greatest critic alive of scriptural inerrancy. He knows all the weak spots, the arguments, the strategies, etc. His thesis is that there is no inerrancy, and he had little trouble tearing apart the Chicago statement and a number of typical evangelical inerrantist claims. He makes the interesting argument that errantists have prevented Christians from knowing the true God of Scripture via their doctrine of inerrancy - since it requires God to fit a certain mold that isn't right.
Enns' approach, however, is worrisome to me (and other scholars) for several reasons: (1) he is brilliant in tearing apart the dogmatism of fundamentalism, and yet he shares the same kind of dogmatic attitude when it comes to Darwinism and the "scholarly consensus." Indeed, whatever the scholarly consensus is, Enns is right there; and he treats it the way fundamentalists treat the inerrancy of Scripture: it is not to be questioned. Only morons question common descent (I'm referring to his other works on this point) and the scholarly consensus on archaeology - just like (the right-wing would assert), only morons reject the inerrancy of scripture and the historicity of Jericho's fall. Contributors pointed out this poor methodology, and how (for example) archaeology is insightful, but it is continually corrected. I really hope Enns will be more critical of modern scholarship.
(2) As contributors also pointed out, Enns has virtually no positive construction of the doctrine of inspiration and Scripture's truthfulness. It amounted to a quote from CS Lewis and a sentence about being in the presence of God's wisdom. That's it? Now, we should give grace to Enns in that his view of Scripture is still under construction. Actually, after reading alot of his stuff, I'm convinced that Enns has no idea what to really make of the Bible - he just knows that it isn't the conservative right wing stuff of his former career. Perhaps he shouldn't even be contributing to the volume for that reason; he only manages to tear everything down without offering much in return (this is almost indicative of the post-modern deconstructionist nihilism of our culture in general). Indeed, he has successfully destroyed much of Mohler's view and the Chicago Statement (though certainly not all of it, in my opinion), but there is almost nothing left to put back together.
In short, Enns doesn't realize the toxicity of his line of thought; Bird pointed that out as well with regard to the resurrection (can we really just say the resurrection - like the Exodus and Jericho - was made up and that wouldn't affect our faith? On the contrary, our faith would then "be in vain"). One cannot simply wholesale reject the historicity of massive chunks of the OT and expect that not to eradicate the Christian faith and the trustworthiness of Scripture and its authors. Enns needs a reality check. He is offering evangelicals this: get rid of your inerrancy (and even moderate infallibility doctrine), and embrace the fact that the OT is nothing more than a collection of fictional epics that a bunch of sinful Jews pulled out of their asses "to make a theological point" - which in turn became the backdrop to the Incarnation of God. But one wonders - a bunch of tales about events that never happened is supposed to magnify the coming of Jesus? If the ancient world was so free to fabricate huge stories to fit their theological purposes (as if they were so gullible and didn't know fact from fiction! And as if all of this is an "ancient view"! Michael Krueger's critique of Enns is appropriate here), then we have no idea what the truth really is, and Christianity is as good as any other religion. Enns is only a few inches away from being the next Bart Ehrman.
Nevertheless, for what bleak picture Enns paints and what little he offers positively, his critiques were all very good - though the one on Franke's was bland. Maybe that's because he writes so passionately and energetically elsewhere that I was expecting something more.
Bird - Now I admit that I came to this book with bias against Bird. I just scanned through his new systematic theology and found it boring and generally unhelpful. But, shame on me for such quick judgmentalism, because Bird did (what I believe) the best job in the entire volume. First of all, he kept it light-hearted. I really appreciated that: strong academic scholarship without the boringness of it. I found his jokes hilarious given the context, and that made everything else a bit more readable.
Second of all, Bird was very persuasive in his argumentation against problems in the Chicago statement and yet in favor of the infallibility of Scripture. Part of his argument was that the vast majority of Christians throughout the world and history have gotten along fine without the modern formulations of the inerrancy of Scripture; why press it so hard as if the rise and fall of Christianity depends on it? Scripture is truthful and infallible; we should not set it up to provide more than it can actually deliver. I'd explain more but it's frankly hard to do given various nuances of Bird's position. I'll just say that Bird's approach is the most balanced, understandable, and I think persuasive to the average evangelical Christian. It also resonates the most with church history.
Best of all, is that Bird does what no other contributor really did but should have: thoroughly addressed the nature of the "autographs." That is, after all, all that is considered "inerrant" in the first place! It was only about a page worth, but Bird took the Chicago Statement to task by pointing out (a) the problem of the autographs in general (what qualifies? There were multiple "original" writings of some books of the Bible - e.g. Jeremiah; the process was a process, not sessions of writing down fixed oral material, ect.), (b) the problem that Jesus and the rest of the NT authors don't seem to care about the autographic text, but cite from the Hebrew, the LXX, combinations of both, and simply don't care about exact wording. Where Bird could have benefited also in this argument is the discussion of form criticism - and how inerrantist evangelicals have (and continue) to waffle back and forth between what consists of the "autographs" - the original writings, or the original writings intended to be read by the church from the original authors (ie their canonical form). They are not the same. The NT authors didn't sit down and write Matthew, Mark, Lk etc., but likely collected several groups of notes and oral traditions together into a coherent whole (possibly several times!) which was then distributed (possibly several times!) to the churches for reading and teaching. Peter Davids in the intro essay in the book Interpreting the NT argues that what is "inerrant" and "inspired" is this second form - the *canonical* form of the writings, not the *original* form of the writings, thus posing a challenge to traditional understandings of the Chicago Statement. Porter, in contrast, say that we should focus on the original *published* form of the writings in How We Got the NT. In any case, while Bird didn't get into many of these details, he was wise to bring up the topic as to the theoretical "originals" (and Enns rightfully commended him on that point).
Now, for the record, I am not saying that earlier forms of the writing are irrelevant, and that (like Parker, Ehrman, Epp, etc.) we should wholesale abandon search for the "original." But we simply cannot be dogmatic about such "originals" since they were multiple, we are uncertain which ones they were, and they are simply inaccessible to us - and have been to most Christians throughout history (remember the earliest texts of the NT were discovered in only the last 400 years). Thus, Christians should nod their head to denominations and seminaries that have the phrase "as originally given by God" in their statement of faith about the Bible, but shake their head when finding the phrase "inspired in the words of the original autographs" in similar documents.
Bird also delivers a critique of ICBI that (to my knowledge) is the only major concession made by Mohler: the international council on biblical inerrancy was NOT international. Most contributors made the same point, and Mohler had to bend ("point taken," in his words). But, Mohler didn't seem to actually get the point that Bird was making: that attitude behind the movement of the Council; they consider themselves so advanced and high on the horse that they can make a claim to "international" status *fully knowing that they are only representing about 5% of the world's evangelicals*. This proves the charge of dogmatism and narrow-mindedness in contributors' critiques of Mohler's position. Like so much of American evangelicalism, the Packers Pipers MacArthurs Driscolls Carsons Mohlers Grudems etc. are the dominating voices of "evangelicalism" - fooling countless pastors into thinking that they represent "standard orthodox evangelical Christianity," when it is anything but that. Thus, as several contributors note (esp. Bird), Mohler and American Evangelicals have a hard time thinking critically about their own theological positions because they see themselves as having the monopoly on evangelical Christianity (or truth in general! ack!) - consequently causing countless Christians behind and under the movement to demonize and reject any variants (e.g., insights from Enns, Bird, etc.), regardless of how true they are. This is really sad. "Conservative" pastors these days gauge your orthodoxy on the basis of the Chicago Statement - something which 99% of the Christian world has never heard of, never will, and would probably never benefit from anyway. I like confessions and creeds, but really?
Vanhoozer - Vanhoozer's critiques were as good or better than Bird's. Clever, precise, penetrating. Oddly then, his main essay was somewhat of a disappointment. It was basically a regurgitation of Mohler's view, but with an emphasis on speech-act theory and literary stuff of his area. Most contributors pointed that out in their responses. That's about all I have to say: great refutations, but a confusing, disjointed, unpersuasive essay.
Franke - If Mohler was a fish out of water, then Franke was a fish out of the wrong planet. Unlike other approaches, Franke pulls up the rug from underneath the whole discussion and says we all have the wrong (foundationalist) epistemology. We need to have a pluralist view of truth, and acknowledge that truth comes through the diversity of the Scriptures. There's certainly some truth to that; in textual criticism, Franke resonates with Epp who said (intro to his book on Junia) diversity in textual readings provide more insight theologically. Maybe so. But Franke's argument goes way farther than this. He argues against any "universal theology," and basically chucks the idea of systematic theology in general out the window. He says the point of Scripture is to build community (missiological). So, really everybody is wrong because the idea of inerrancy has been ill-conceived. He redefines it in a nuanced philosophical way that need not be summarized here.
His argument is so lofty and abstract that it is unclear what Christianity even is in his view; after all, if there can be multiple theologies in Scripture and multiple theologies of Christianity throughout the world, what is Christianity, really? Whatever someone wants it to be? Is there only perceptions in Franke's world? Bird is right to point out the faulty pragmatic attitude behind Franke's position. Can we really just say that the purpose of Scripture is to build community with little to say about who Jesus is - universally? Vanhoozer also makes the clever refutation of pointing out the foundationalist claims in Scripture. What does one do with those?
Like Enns, Franke doesn't know the toxicity of his own argument. Where does it end? Where does knowledge begin? And if Jesus claims to be the only "way truth and life," how can we resist singular truth claims that are universal? If the plurality of truth view is all that it is cracked up to be, why not accept both coherence theory and foundationalism? Franke is self-contradictory in that respect; if he was consistent, he wouldn't present his theory as if it was *the* theory to have. If we are to take him at his word, basically we can dismiss his view as being no better than anyone elses. In brief. Franke tried to de-dogmatize and open up people's eyes, but his post-conservative theology (which was not problematic in and of itself) ended up being more (or less) than that, and to his own argument's detriment.
All of this stirred the pot a bit. Enns' response to Franke was, well, kind of hilarious in context. It was total change of tone; no more confident "I'm the radical guy around here and proud of it" attitude. It was almost like Enns is the shark swimming around the pool trying to eat everyone with a smile on his face, but then Gandalf (Franke) floats over and turns the whole pool into jello, leaving everyone stunned and speechless...Enns critiques status quo on inerrancy; Franke one-ups by critiquing the status quo on...everything that everyone thinks they know. Well anyway. Franke's responses were all very meaningful and well-written.
General Remarks
Great book, credit to the editors for putting it together. But, man, it's not finished. Lots of typos:
1. "(p.000)". This is found 3 times in the volume from multiple authors (e.g. page 77). I imagine the editors were supposed to fill in these page numbers after the final draft was complete.
2. Several periods were bold, making them larger than normal periods. Again, remnants from earlier drafts.
3. Some reference typos.
Fortunately, they weren't so prevalent that it was distracting.
I thought the first half of the closing editorial remarks was...odd and off-topic. Felt like I was reading another book about something else.
As far as advancing the discussion, the debate on inerrancy would have used alot of more basic argumentation such as:
1. What qualifies as an "error"? This seems so central, and yet, only one author really got their hands dirty in trying to define what qualifies. Others addressed it briefly in passing, saying how (for example) we shouldn't expect precision beyond authorial intent, etc. But as far as a real, substantive discussion about the nature of error, not much there.
2. What qualifies as "autographic text"? I mentioned his earlier in this review. Even those who adhere to the Chicago Statement have no real idea about what qualifies as "autographs"; form criticism and the differences between the Hebrew and LXX, and the Bible of Jesus and the NT authors (version of LXX and versions of Hebrew), differences between "canonical"/"published" text, etc. loom large in this discussion. (It is absurd that the ETS and EPS societies require all members to embrace the "inerrancy of the autographs" - the equivalent of requiring academics to believe in Santa Clause. [And evangelicals wonder why the outside world of scholarship thinks they're weird!])
3. What qualifies as "Bible"? Again, the term is used in countless ways and it is rarely defined. Which Bible? The Hebrew OT (which one?) The LXX (which one?) The OT of Jesus and the NT authors (which one?) The Greek NT (which readings?) The Latin translations? (which one/how much?) English translations (which one/how much?) The Protestant canon (or Ethiopic, Eastern O. or Roman Catholic?) One cannot talk about the inerrancy of the "Bible" without agreeing on what the Bible is. And, oddly, this was only addressed meaningfully in Bird's discussion about the autographic text and longer ending of Jeremiah. It is too easy - and yet utterly unmeaningful to say "the autographic text of the Protestant canon," for it begs the question.
4. Doesn't one's view of inerrancy depend upon the purpose of Scripture? This is something that could use ALOT of attention. It only came out clearly once: in Franke's essay. He says the ultimate purpose of Scripture is really to build a community. Everyone else never really clearly stated what the ultimate purpose of Scripture was. This is importance BECAUSE IT DETERMINES what qualifies as an "error." If God only intended to clearly communicate the way of salvation, then errors not having to do with that salvation message are utterly irrelevant. If God intended to communicate the way of salvation and historical details, then historical errors would undermine the doctrine of inerrancy. If God only intended to reveal accurate information about Jesus, than errors about everything else are irrelevant. And on and on it goes.
In other words, the scope of "truth and error" is determined by the authorial intention of God as the primary author of Scripture - *and that is precisely what none of the authors in the volume agree on.* Why? Because the Bible itself does not clearly and definitely state what it's ultimate (and limited) purpose(s) is. There is no consensus on what Scripture is ultimately given for - and proof of this is given in the seminary and church statements of faith about the BIble (some say "in matters of faith and practice," others "matters pertaining to salvation," others "in all things it asserts," in others "for Christian life and communion with God," etc.). Granted, all (Christians) agree that it is to reveal who Jesus is (and consequently who God is) and the way of salvation, but beyond that, there is endless disagreement - and consequently, endless disagreement about what "inerrancy" is or should be.
Conservatives (Mohler etc.) will undoubtedly repeat the mantra about how Scripture is true in "all that it affirms," but that doesn't answer the question at all: that book A B or C affirms X Y Z does not establish what Scripture, as a whole, has been provided for - from a divine perspective. If God's intention was never to provide an inerrant Bible as conservatives see it - a "final standard for all truth claims" but to provide (for example) a trustworthy account of God's work in redemptive history, the life/death/res. of Jesus, and the fulfillment of various promises (e.g., concerning Spirit's outpouring, etc.) in the church, then (as Enns and Bird rightfully and compellingly argue), formulating additional, artificial standards/attributes of Scripture is what is harmful to Christianity and the church, not to those who acknowledge what Scripture *actually is*.
So again, the question goes back to what the Bible actually is, and what it's ultimate purpose is. This is, in my perspective, what gives rise to the entire debate of view of inerrancy - not so much hermeneutics, epistemology, challenges of modernism, etc.
68 of 71 people found the following review helpful.
IS THE BIBLE TRULY WITHOUT ERROR?
By Dr. David P. Craig
Four primary topics are treated in this multi-view book: (1) God and his relationship to his creatures, (2) the doctrine of inspiration, (3) the nature of Scripture, and (4) the nature of truth.
Instead of allowing the author's to simply give a defense of their positions - each scholar tackles the same outline and passages from their own perspective with reference to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (ISBI). Therefore, specific scriptures are handled to demonstrate each view along the lines of three specific categories: (1) The factuality of Scripture, (2) canonical coherence, and (3) theological coherence.
The scholars therefore all interact with the following texts: Joshua 6, Acts 9:9 compared with Acts 22:9, and Deuteronomy 20 in relation to Matthew 5. Joshua 6 was chosen since current details of historical and archaeological evidence have called into question the accuracy of the text's account of the destruction of of Jericho. The Acts passage which describes Paul's conversion was chosen due to the apparent discrepancy between what the witnesses saw and heard during this event. For theological coherence the author's grapple with the question "How is it that Deuteronomy 20 instructs Israel that the complete extermination of Yahweh's enemies is a matter of Israel's purity before and obedience to Yaweh, while Jesus subsequently says faithfulness to God requires nonretaliation and sacrificial love of enemeies (Matthew 5:38-48)?"
The scholars addressing these biblical, theological, and historical concerns are two biblical scholars (Michael Bird and Peter Enns), two systematic theologians (John Franke and Kevin Vanhoozer), and one historical theologian (Albert Mohler). Part one consists of Mohler's and Enns' essays in a section entitled "Perspectives on Inerrancy and the Past." In part 2 Michael Bird (hailing from Australia) addresses "Inerrancy from an International Perspective." In part 3 Kevin Vanhoozer and John Franke represent "Perspectives on Renewing and Recasting Inerrancy Today." Each essay is then responded to by the other four scholars.
Albert Mohler's essay was disappointing in that his argumentation was circular and sophomoric. Of all the essays in the book I was looking forward to his the most. It seems that he didn't put the time into the essay that was necessary. He simply wholeheartedly agreed with ISBI and did a poor job with the biblical material. His historical study of inerrancy was limited to the mid-late 1900's. Mohler's essay was answered in broad strokes and an a priori apologetic that was redundant and unconvincing. Mohler does a much better job in his essays of response - especially in his response to Enns. I wish that the editors would have chosen a biblical scholar in place of Mohler (with his same postion) - because his handling of the biblical material was particularly simplistic and weak. It just seemed like Mohler's schedule was too busy to put the necessary scholarship into his essay. However, I wholeheartedly agree with Mohler's assessment of biblical inerancy when he says, "I do not believe that evangelicalism can survive without the explicit and complete assertion of biblical inerrancy...The afirmation of biblical inerrancy means nothing more, and nothing less, than this: When the Bible speaks, God speaks."
Peter Enns came across as just plain "ticked off" at the whole idea of biblical inerrancy. He gave a plethora of reasons why he doesn't think ISBI is a fair or accurate document. He does not adhere to inerrancy (as defined by ISBI) and calls it "erroneous." The closest he comes to arriving at any position on the Bible is when he writes: "Scripture is a collection of a variety of writings that necessarily and unashamedly reflects the worlds in which those writings were produced. The implication of this metaphor is that an understanding of those historical settings can and should affect interpretive conclusions."
Enns handling of the biblical material was influenced primarily by liberal scholarship. He believes the Jericho episode didn't happen due to the archaeological evidence. He believes Paul's conversion reports are blatant contradictions. Lastly, he thinks that the God of the Old Testament as described in Deuteronomy is different than the God portrayed in the New Testament. He writes, "Israel's depiction of God vis-a-vis the nations unmistakably, and understandably, reflects the ubiquitous tribal culture at the time."
Mohler writes of Enns, "So, taking Peter Enns at his word the Bible contains numerous passages that not only fail the test of historical accuracy (even to the point of questioning whether the exodus took place), but also present a false and dangerous misrepresentation of God's very character and will." The overall response of the other essayists was similar to my own own response. I felt that Enns was overly critical of Scripture, and didn't really give a constructive or positive view of Scripture at all. It felt like his whole essay was reactionary and destructive. There was really no positive argument given. It was a lot like reading the "new atheists" - a lot of attack and very little evidence or support for their own view.
Michael Bird's essay was perhaps the most interesting of the five. If he ever loses his job as a theologian he could become a night club comic. He provides humor in his essay and in his responses to the other essayists (especially humorous is his response to Enns). Bird has the difficult task of reflecting the idea of inerrancy outside of the USA. He covers a lot of ground and shares where he agrees and disagrees with ISBI. He provides a very balanced essay in his response to ISBI, his historical reflections on inerrancy around the globe, and his biblical argumentation - brief but very cogent and clear. One of the highlights of Bird's essay was this gem, "The goal of revelation is not knowing facts about God but also enjoying fellowship with God." Overall Bird's essay is very witty, theologically insightful, and interesting.
Kevin Vanhoozer's essay argues for what he terms "A Well-versed inerrancy." He basis his definition largely on the historic tradition of Augustine. Vanhoozer proposes this definition of inerrancy, "to say that the Scripture is inerrant is to confess faith that the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make affirmations), and will eventually be seen to have spoken truly (when right readers read rightly)." The bulk of Vanhoozer's essay buttresses his definition of inerrancy with a particular interest in the terms "truth" and "language" and he ties these concepts to the writings and concepts developed by Augustine. His essay utilizes careful language and sophisticated theological and philosophical depth that one would expect of a top-notch systematic theologian. Vanhoozer handles the biblical passages with tremendous theological and exegetical skill.
Vanhoozer gives the practical importance of a well-versed inerrancy with these words: "Implicit in my definition of inerrancy is that we be not only literate readers who rightly see what proposition an author is proposing (the literal sense) and what kind of attention to this proposition is required (literary sensibility) but also right-minded and right-hearted readers who respond rightly to each and every communicative act of Scripture (Spirit-given literacy) Ultimately, a well-versed approach to inerrancy constitutes nothing less than a standing requirement that the community of Scripture's interpreters become persons capable of understanding, loving, and participating in the truth."
I love the conclusion to Vanhoozer's essay where he quotes Augustine's approach to the veracity of the Scriptures: "And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to the truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand." Of all the essays, I found Vanhoozer's to be the most theologically profound and exegetically sound.
John Franke does not believe that the ICBI should serve as the standard-bearer for inerrancy. He offers an alternative model - what he calls a fallibilist perspective, "inerrancy functions only within the limits of language alone. It applies to Scripture only in the context of the original settings in which the texts that we have were constructed, and its affirmations and teachings cannot be abstracted from those contexts and offered as absolute truth, because only God knows and is Truth...this means that the ultimate truth and inerrancy of the Bible are finally contained not in the particular narratives and teachings of individual texts but rather in relation to its intended purpose and function in the economy of God...the Bible is that language the Spirit appropriates and employs to effect the social construction of the Christian community."
Therefore, for Franke, the Bible is essentially fallible because it was written by fallible human beings. He expects that the Scriptures will contain errors and in his discussion of the biblical passages he is not troubled in the slightest by the historicity of the conquest of Jericho, nor the historic details of Paul's Damascus Road vision. He seems more concerned about the big picture than the little details of the Bible. In doing so - he never quite tells us what inerrancy is. He never tells us what truth is. I found his essay to be confusing, fragmented, and unconvincing in regards to his theology, epistemology, and exegesis.
On the whole this is a fascinating multi-view book. The terrain covered is theologically rich, historically insightful, and exegetically helpful. The final chapter written by Stephen M. Garrett and J. Merrick was just what the doctor ordered. It helped bring synthesis, clarification, as well as a much needed explanation of the continuity and discontinuity on the spectrum of issues presented throughout the book. I highly recommend this book for everyone who loves God's Word and is seeking to know, love, and live out His truth as revealed in the Scriptures.
47 of 50 people found the following review helpful.
Vanhoozer's essay is worth the price of the book (3.5 stars)
By A. Omelianchuk
No one is indifferent to the doctrine of inerrancy, and what follows are some of my rambling thoughts about the matter after reading through Zondervan's latest `counterpoints' book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.
On the contributors. Al Mohler loves inerrancy--the more of it the better; Peter Enns thinks it's stupid; Michael Bird really hates the word `inerrancy,' but affirms everything it traditionally stands for; Kevin Vanhoozer actually tries to flesh out its content; and John Franke thinks it's all a language game. As usual, the essays are uneven in quality. Vanhoozer's the best, Enns' is the most provocative, Bird's is funny at moments, but isn't that interesting, Franke's makes little sense, and Mohler's is frustrating.
Inerrancy as deduction. I think it is relatively clear that inerrancy is not a conclusion drawn from a long inductive investigation of each and every text in the Bible; rather it is a conclusion of a deductive argument that goes like so:
[1] Whatever God inspires is inerrant.
[2] The Bible is inspired by God.
[3] Therefore, the Bible is inerrant.
This makes inerrancy an implication of perfect being theology, and an article of faith that guides the interpretation of Scripture. No reading of Scripture that calls into question the truthfulness of the text is compatible with the belief that God is truthful. This explains why inerrancy is so hard to give up; it is near the center of one's theology informed more by our intuitions about a perfect being rather than the text itself. Consequently, this explains why Mohler says, "The point is that I do not allow any line of evidence from outside the Bible to nullify to the slightest degree the truthfulness of any text in all that the text asserts and claims." The problem with this, of course, is that if outside evidence cannot challenge the veracity of the text, then neither can it confirm it (it can only agree with it). The appeal to empirical evidence outside of Scripture is simply inconsistent with affirming the authority of Scripture. Thus, while the deductive argument is surely valid, the truth of its premises can only be established by an appeal to Scripture, making it viciously circular. It seems to me that Mohler's rationale for committing to inerrancy is a case of fideism; an exercise of faith without sufficient reason.
No knowledge of God without inerrancy. Mohler rhetorically asks, "If we cannot trust the Bible, in all its parts, to reveal God with perfect truthfulness, how can we know him at all?" Biblical inerrancy, in Mohler's view, is necessary for knowledge of God. But surely it is not. Abraham was without the Bible and he presumably had accurate knowledge of God. Examples like these could be multiplied. Nonetheless, the important point is that we could not know God if God were not truthful with us. This cannot be denied, yet this seems to be precisely questioned by Enns and his bizarre "incarnational" view of the Bible where ancient human texts seem to amount to nothing more than ignorant human texts that reveal diverse beliefs about God, most of which are false. I have trouble understanding why Enns would think that reading the Bible puts one in the presence of a wise, but mysterious, God. It's nice that God is willing to meet us where we are at, but why this should imply that he inspires false assertions so as to accommodate our ignorance, prejudice, and hate is left glaringly unexplained. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is simply not worth reading if we want to know and understand who God is (assuming Enns is right).
Inerrancy and ethics. Enns's essay finds its worth in its indictment of the ethics of inerrancy. As one who lost his job by virtue of the behavior of those who wielded the doctrine as if it were a flaming sword, Enns deftly draws attention to the moral dissonance one experiences when one is vilified for questioning the veracity of texts that report God commanding his people to commit genocide. His money quote: "Arguing for a position on the basis of what you might lose if that position is not retained is not an argument but an expression of fear, which when allowed to reign leads to anger, either directly or indirectly by means of manipulation, passive-aggressiveness, and [...] emotional blackmail."
Indeed, the same sort of deductive reasoning that gets the argument for inerrancy going forms one against it:
[4] Whatever God inspires is not morally repugnant.
[5] The Bible contains texts that are morally repugnant.
[6] Therefore, those texts are not inspired by God.
Interestingly, this sort of argument is assumed in the background as the editors task the participants with explaining how the same God who inspired texts that, on the one hand, command and approve of holy wars for the sake of total extermination, and on the other, command us to love our enemies, do good to them, and not respond in kind to violence. This argument is never directly dealt with, except for a short comment by Vanhoozer who thinks our moral intuitions are not trustworthy enough to render judgment on such things (why we need the Bible to tell us if bludgeoning babies to death is wrong is left unexplained). The same perfect being theology that gets the argument for inerrancy going undermines it when we start examining cases. Vanhoozer, again, is the only contributor to criticize our a priori assumptions about perfect being theology.
Errors and their kind. The million dollar question as it relates to inerrancy is `what constitutes an error?' The answer is not so clear cut. For example, commands cannot be in error, because commands do not have truth value. But they can be well-formed or not; a well-formed command is such that it generates a duty in the one to whom it is addressed. Commands that are immoral fail to do so. Thus, the concept of inerrancy is inadequate for making sense of "errors" that involve commands, because inerrancy only applies to assertions. The concept of infallibility makes better sense of whether commands are well-formed or not, because whatever is infallible is faultless.
Sadly, this distinction goes mostly unnoticed and the usual silly language about "every word" being inerrant or that the Bible is "infallible," but not "inerrant" is deployed. Only Vanhoozer correctly notes that inerrancy is a species of infallibility in that it applies only to Scripture's assertions and whatever propositions that are deducible from Scripture. Moreover, the concept of truth is rarely defined, which contributors like Franke and Enns seem to capitalize on when they claim that there are multiple concepts of truth as they relate to ancient, modern, or divine persons. Others like Bird are very concerned about "precision," which is something that "inerrancy" is thought to connote. Again, Vanhoozer is helpful when he points out that truth just is what is the case. How language captures the truth is the issue; not whether there are different kinds of truth.
The genre is in the details. The editors of this volume recount the sad dismissal of Robert Gundry from the Evangelical Theological Society in 1983. His crime: he thought that parts of the Matthean birth narrative were not historical. This seems like an open and shut case, but Gundry was not without a reasonable defense: the birth narrative is not a historical genre, but an artful expression of Jewish midrash that is meant to draw our attention to other things rather than historical details. The much discussed Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) says nothing about genre (you won't find that word in it!), but it condemns any hermeneutical practice that "dehistoricizes" the text. On the other hand, it affirms that God used the distinctive "literary styles" of the writers who were inspired to write the text. The problem is that determining whether a literary style is historical or not is a matter of interpretation--not inspiration--which is why the appeal to CSBI to expel Gundry made little sense. Vanhoozer rightly draws attention to this, and the point should not be missed since affirming inerrancy is taken to be mark of authentic evangelical commitment in evangelical seminaries and scholarly societies.
All and all this is a fun little book for anyone who would like to know more about this contentious doctrine. As a philosopher (in training) I find the idea of biblical inerrancy to be more interesting than ever. The intersection of the philosophy of language, the philosophy of history, literary criticism, the nature of truth, the structure of knowledge, theories of interpretation, and perfect being theology all converge to make fertile ground for philosophical reflection. Add to that the sociological drama of the consequences of affirming or denying biblical inerrancy, and you get all the trappings political intrigue thrown in. This book reflects all of that in wonderful detail.
See all 26 customer reviews...
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan PDF
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan EPub
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan Doc
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan iBooks
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan rtf
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan Mobipocket
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan Kindle
^ Download PDF Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan Doc
^ Download PDF Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan Doc
^ Download PDF Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan Doc
^ Download PDF Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology), by Zondervan Doc
