From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Inerrancy _ Jere 36
Date: 16 Aug 92 05:26:29 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing


 REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov

>In article <Aug.10.05.03.59.1992.16773@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>

[Many words debating inerrancy]

>[No, I think not.  I've read this several times to see whether I can
>find any sign that continuing discussion would be useful.  I can't.
>--clh]

Quite understandably the moderator finds the continuation of this
argument useless. He and Rexlex operate from differing presuppositions.
Rexlex's insistence on the infallibility of Scripture is both
Scripturally and historically attested. The problem with his defense,
however, is that it assumes the moderator shares some common starting
point in the discussion. Thus, Rexlex relies on the canons of
archeology to buttress his apologetic for inerrancy. We have no reason
to believe, though, that the knowledgeable moderator will be convinced
by such data. He interprets data in harmony with his presuppositions.
It is his presuppositions, not the data, that need to be addressed.
Scripture depicts man not as erring because of his intellect but
because of his rebellion against God (Rom. 1).

Moreover, the definition of inerrancy employed by Rexlex is quite
novel. It bespeaks an Enlightenment-induced understanding of truth. To
subject God and his revelation to modern "scientific" standards of
accuracy is like examining the sun with a candle. We do not defend the
Scripture because it seems to conform to a scientific understanding of
accuracy. The Bible is impeccably accurate because it is divinely
inspired; it is not divinely inspired because it is accurate. The
Scripures must be defended on the grounds that they are God's
impeccable propositional revelation which sinful man rejects in his
rebellion. He will find every excuse, including "scientific" excuses,
to deny divine authority. We believers must point out that his problem
is ethical, not intellectual. Consequently, we must not appeal to his
intuition, reason, or experience as though they are valid arbiters of
truth. 

Andrew Sandlin posting from the account of
dan  of dlh Performance Marketing  POBox 1419  Mentor Ohio 44061
         NCoast.org!dlhpfm!dlh or ab.com!dlhpfm.uucp!dlh 

[I do not argue with archaeology because (1) I am not sufficiently
knowledgeable about it and (2) I believe the Bible is substantially
accurate during those periods where archaeology would apply, so I
would expect archaeology generally to support it.  (That does not mean
I am sure that there are no disagreements with archaeology.  There are
certainly many archaeologists who believe that such disagreements
exist.  However I'm not sufficiently informed to assess the merits of
such claims.  I have no doubt that some are wrong.  I suspect that
some are probably right.  But I don't base any significant conclusions
on it.)

I don't find discussions useful because I don't see anything on which
to base them.  The arguments seem to me to be materializing rabbits
out of thin air on every side.  Other people, who seem to be fine
Christians, appear to find nothing odd in the arguments, and believe
that inerrancy is an essential doctrine.  This leaves me with nothing
useful to say.  Maybe they see something I don't. Maybe they are so
desperate to believe in a source of guaranteed truth that they see
things that aren't there.  But in either case, I don't see anything I
can say that would make any difference.  

You seem to be implying that I am simply in rebellion against God and
that's why I don't understand.  Like all ad hominem arguments, it is
unanswerable.  It can explain away all possible disagreements, or
none.  To the extent that you are willing to invoke it, there is no
possible way to talk with people who disagree with you, and if there
are areas where *you* are wrong, you will not see them.  As a believer
in total depravity, I do not deny that both of us are in rebellion
against God.  As an equal believer in God's grace, I have faith that
he can made himself understood anyway.

--clh]