Finally, the concluding post in my series on inerrancy.And I decided to finish off with a podcast (this is my second, my first, can be found here). It took a little longer than I thought it would, so apologies for the length (just over 20 mins), but I've managed to keep the size of the file down (just over 5MB).
In it, I give a bit of personal background to these posts, respond to some (evil, morally corrupt) critics by clarifying what my purpose was in writing them, and then turn to deal with the question of how to formulate our understanding of Scripture in regard to truth.
I hope you enjoy it, and, as always, your comments are most welcome.
The file (inerrancy.mp3) can be downloaded here.
----------
Two of the texts I discuss:
Millard Erickson: ‘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.’
The Second Vatican Council: ‘The books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures’
And the quote with which I end the series:
‘Is not every doctrine of Holy Scripture as such a superfluous saying of “Lord, Lord”?’
(K. Barth, Church Dogmatics I/2, 461)
21 comments:
You were a bit too serious throughout--I was expecting a little more tongue-in-cheek action. (Just in case that doesn't translate culturally, let me say it doesn't have anything to do with podcasting a makeout session.)
Hi Chris
Appropriately enough, in your podcast, you started with Biblical inerrancy and finished with Barth!
Guy
Gut gemacht mein Bruder!
I came across a great motif that we should not be those who read the bible literally, but instead those who read the bible literarily - and central to this process would be an understanding of the purpose and nature of the community which gave the 'text' its ultimate shape and transmission.
This is why I like the '5 act hermeneutic' so much, since it allows scripture to have a 'defining' and 'moulding' role even as it challenges us to launch ourselves out and create, within the context we are in, articulations of the Kingdom which find their impulse from the whole dynamic of God-in-creation (as witnessed by the graphei) but which are also new and fresh - as befits the activity of the Divine pneuma.
Mehr, mehr....
tigger
Excellent conclusion to an excellennt series of posts on inerrancy.
Well, I feel like you sidestepped my comments on your series. I'm going to address your comments in my own podcast soon at ReformedCatholicism.com. I had hoped for more significant interaction with my point of view...but 'you can't always get what you want'. :)
JB, sorry for your disappointment. I'll try to remember to add a few ‘knock, knock’/‘why chicken cross road?’ jokes next time.
Hi Tigger, I liked the literally/literarily idea. I first came across the 5 act thing via Wright, but I’ve just started Vanhoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine, so I hope that my thoughts will be taken further on this model.
Thanks for your kind words Petros
Hi Kevin,
Well, I feel like you sidestepped my comments on your series. I'm going to address your comments in my own podcast soon at ReformedCatholicism.com. I had hoped for more significant interaction with my point of view...but 'you can't always get what you want'. :)
Sorry if you feel I side-stepped issues, but for practical purposes I had to, as so many people have written about this series, it would have been nigh on impossible for me to go into depth on them all. I did actually think over your points in more depth, and was tempted to spend more time on them – especially as I had gathered points in your posts that I wanted to address ‘one on one’ into a separate file, but, like you say, ‘you can't always do what you want’! I look forward to your podcast.
Chris, thanks for commenting on my blog post on this. And thanks for your podcast on the gospel in Paul, too, which I finally got around to listening to. Lots of great insights in there. Made me think that I'll have to podcast on that topic sometime...
Hi Mike,
DO do a podcast! I know I'd be listening.
All the best.
Kenny, thanks for these comments, I'll go have a look at your post.
Any thoughts on Kevin Vanhoozer's article The Inerrancy of Scripture
I quite enjoyed this --- apart from the fact that I quite often disagreed with what you were saying!
Generally well thought out however, in fact you inspired me to finally get together a podcast (not in response to you however) so at least you were inspirational!
Hi Sivin,
I must admitt, I haven't read this article - I'll go have a look.
Justin,
I quite enjoyed this --- apart from the fact that I quite often disagreed with what you were saying!
Well, you know what I think about people who disagree with me! A good course in fasting, repentance and, if necessary, deliverance, should clear up that little problem.
you inspired me to finally get together a podcast Great! Glad to hear it - must go download.
You, sir, are an OUTRAGE! Unworthy to call yourself a ... just kidding.
Thanks for a very interesting series, on an important subject.
Regards,
John
:-)
I started to get scared!
Thanks John, and for the Küng link. SOme of the talks on the TIMMS webpage I posted on are in English, btw.
Wow, cool accent you have there. Where I get one?
Hi Dave.
You speaky American accent me thinks?
1st step: deliverance ministry.
2nd: Repentance.
3rd: Intercession for a sanctified tongue.
Thanks Chris, tres interesting.
Merci
Chris. Thanks heaps for posting your stuff on inerrancy. It was great. I especially appreciated the postcast. You almost sound like an Aussie. A few questions:
1. So what do you make of the alternate Judas texts? Can/should we harmonise them? eg. Judas fell into a ditch after the rope snapped? What do you think is going on in these texts?
2. Do you now feel like you were lied to/mislead as a teenager?
3. Any good feedback on the podcast?
Hi Jason!
Thanks for your words.
I'll perhaps try to answer some of these questions in a future post.
This is how I se things in short, 1) One is historically right, the other wrong, but both are holy Scripture.
2. Yes, I guess so. But no in the sense that I was always warned not to study theology!
3. Yes, but lots of negative too! Actually, alot of evil people have been saying al kinds of evil things, actually, get this, diasagreeing with me. Unbelievable!
Indeed, Chris! If I could only speak in such a sanctified tongue, I could make much more money in American seminaries and universities!
Please pray for me, brother.
Hi there,
So glad you enjoyed the posts. Yea, I took the audio down ages ago to make space on my server. To be honest, I think I would say things quite differently these days so I'm not too keen to put it back up!! My thoughts have developed in ways I explore in posts on this blog about a "new statement of biblical inerrancy".
Warm greetings,
Chris
Post a Comment