From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Limits to Criticism: response [plus moderator's comment]
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:08:26 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.

In article <Sep.6.16.53.06.1992.8497@athos.rutgers.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>Let me put it to you point-blank what my concern is, and hope that
>some of you who are concerned with inerrancy vs. scholarship can
>respond to it (it is certainly not a new thought):

Is it really "innerancy vs. scholarship?  So then, those who support
inerrancy are devoid of objective facts?  I would suggest that this itself
is based on a presupposition.

I rather see this dialogue as two perspectives based on two sets of 
presuppositions.  Each side works to justify their arguments coming from 
certain assumptions:
(1) one is that the mind of the scholar(s) is correct, so that any
seeming discrepancies uncovered n the Bible are 'proof' of error
(2) two is that objective truth can only be handed to men from outside 
their domain, outside of this time-space continuim, and in order to be 
kept untainted is without error.  

The second view believes that collective man's minds are not the judge for 
truth.  That objective truth must come from outside, not inside, man's mind.
This is only emphasized by the tangible effects sin had on our thinking - not 
that we cannot think, or that reason is always bad, but that reason is subject
to error.  Human logic and reason in itself is too prone to error in order to 
make eternal life and death decisions.
 
>Sometimes a doctrine can be criticised merely on the ground that it
>has unaccaptable implications.  Are we to conclude that God has given
>mankind a special revelation of Himself and of ultimate reality, in
>the form of the scriptures that we have

Yes.

>perhaps plus a body of "oral law"

I would not encourage someone to stake his eternal home on "oral tradition" 
or hearsay.

>but that the very same "ordinary people" whom the Founder of our
>faith singled out almost exclusively to address, are incapable of
>"correctly" valueing it?  

Think of how extensively Christ used the written Scripture to explain what
He was doing for the Jews who were looking for the written Word to be 
fulfilled.  Matthew is a good view of this.  Think how expertly Christ 
used the written Word to defeat Satan's very clever temptations in Matthew
4:1-11.  Christ said that every stroke of the written law was not to change.

To the 'ordinary people' who want to live for God, it is written in Ps 119:9-16:
"How can a young man keep his way pure?  By living according to your word.
I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands.  
I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.
Praise be to you, O LORD; teach me your decrees.  With my lips I recount
all the laws that come from your mouth.  I rejoice in following your statutes
as one rejoices in great riches.  I meditate on your precepts and consider
your ways.  I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word."

So, understanding and obeying God's word is presented as doable for the 
average, non-scholarly believer.  In fact, it is required.

May we all understand it and do it.

John

[I note that your two points may not be a good characterization
either.  First, I don't think anyone believes scholarship is perfect.
The question isn't so much whether we have proven a specific passage
to be a contradiction -- these things are subject to reevalation, and
judgements change over time.  Rather, it's whether the principle of
inerrancy is required in order for us to have input from the outside.
--clh]