Beale on the Biblical Logic of Inerrancy
3 comments | Permalink
Jim Hamilton:This year’s Crossway Lecture at ETS was presented by G. K. Beale. Beale argued that Inerrancy is not a scholastic theological deduction made by interpreters of the Bible, but rather that it is an exegetical observation of a theological deduction that at least one biblical author has already made within the text of the Bible itself. Citing the logic of innerancy:To see Beale's argument from the Book of Revelation on this point, read Jim's whole post.Beale argued that John has already made this argument and drawn this conclusion for us in the book of Revelation.
- God is true and trustworthy, and he never lies, deceives, or makes mistakes.
- The Bible is God’s revelation of himself.
- Therefore the Bible never lies, deceives, or makes mistakes.
Beale's new book is now available: The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority.
posted by JT at Tuesday, December 02, 2008
3 Comments:
Looks like a good book. Thanks for the note.
it's obvious from most of my comments here that i don't subsrcibe to biblical inerrancy - either that, or the definition would have to have so many qualifications attached to it that it would barely match what most of you hold to.
revelation was a single book written by a single writer most likely without access to what eventually became the biblical canon, and most certainly written a couple of hundred years before that canon was officially determined. further, inclusion of it was probably among the most hotly debated topics at the time the canon was being formed. to argue that a reference in it alludes to the set of books we call 'the bible' is beyond the bounds of the same logic the author wants to use to make his point, is it not? further, the same catholic church that blessed our 66 books 'added to them' a number of others that protestants do not recognize - so either protestants are wrong, or the catholics picked a book that the protestants use to say what they approved was not approvable.
because we bind and sell a collection of books as a whole, we read things into 'all acripture' or 'these words' that, if pressed, they really don't say, do they? peter refers to some things 'of paul', but what? and only paul's writings in the NT?
none of these arguments are new, and i guess that's my main point: to think we're going to break new ground in the discussion or 'proof' of inerrancy seems to me to be like sarah palin speaking to the georgia PBR crowd that just elected a guy name 'Saxby' - the faithful don't need to be converted, and those opposed will rightly refuse to be (IMNSHO).
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
"The bible as God's revelation of himself?" Umm...I thought that was Jesus? The bible is the witness to that revelation.
Islam believes the Koran is as though Allah is the book. Not much different then the above quote.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home