guibox - 27 November 2009 03:28 PM

Greg - 27 November 2009 12:09 PM

Stan’s statement speaks to the different styles and details contained in the different gospel accounts, but Stan would still consider the Scriptures inerrant in each account. Your position differs in that you say the accounts themselves have errors in them but the theological message of all the accounts is infallible.

Oh please. It’s the same thing and what we mean when we say the bible is ‘errant but infallible’. Let’s not make mountains out of molehills. What you and Jeremy are espousing is applicable to those who say ‘Paul was wrong’ or ‘David and Solomon were merely speaking their own minds’.

Greg - 27 November 2009 12:09 PM

This is a crucial difference between the Adventist position and that of Evangelical Christianity. At least by affirming inerrancy, we start from a position of our doctrines being tested by Scripture and not the other way around.

Greg

It doesn’t apply to SDAs (at least any SDA that I know of).

What would you tell the SDA who argues against the Trinity because he believes the Trinitarian proof texts were added by Catholics? This is a direct example of how some Adventists use the infallibility vs. inerrancy argument. They believe the Trinitarian references in Scripture are errant while the non-Trinitarian references are infallible. So far, nothing you’ve said provides an answer for this argument since you’ve already opened the door for errors being found in Scripture.

Greg

Greg - 27 November 2009 03:48 PM

What would you tell the SDA who argues against the Trinity because he believes the Trinitarian proof texts were added by Catholics? This is a direct example of how some Adventists use the infallibility vs. inerrancy argument. They believe the Trinitarian references in Scripture are errant while the non-Trinitarian references are infallible. So far, nothing you’ve said provides an answer for this argument since you’ve already opened the door for errors being found in Scripture.

Greg

I would say they are wrong. I would say show me the proof that stuff has been added in. Show me where this supposed ‘added in stuff’ contradicts the rest of the Word? The Trinity doctrine does not contradict itself and they and other anti-Trinitarians are just blowing smoke because of what they DEEM as contradictions and need a scapegoat.

This argument is NOT the ‘infallible vs inerrant’, because it is not some differing eye-witness account, it is something completely added in beyond the scope of apostolic inspiration.

guibox - 27 November 2009 04:17 PM

Greg - 27 November 2009 03:48 PM

What would you tell the SDA who argues against the Trinity because he believes the Trinitarian proof texts were added by Catholics? This is a direct example of how some Adventists use the infallibility vs. inerrancy argument. They believe the Trinitarian references in Scripture are errant while the non-Trinitarian references are infallible. So far, nothing you’ve said provides an answer for this argument since you’ve already opened the door for errors being found in Scripture.

Greg

I would say they are wrong. I would say show me the proof that stuff has been added in. Show me where this supposed ‘added in stuff’ contradicts the rest of the Word? The Trinity doctrine does not contradict itself and they and other anti-Trinitarians are just blowing smoke because of what they DEEM as contradictions and need a scapegoat.

This argument is NOT the ‘infallible vs inerrant’, because it is not some differing eye-witness account, it is something completely added in beyond the scope of apostolic inspiration.

If you will recall, the SDA theologian who argued with Stan did provide evidence based on manuscripts that were missing the texts used to support the Trinity. You again are left only with “I would say they are wrong” and the result is an impasse where he believes one thing and you believe another. Nothing can break through that argument unless the Bible is fully trustworthy in every detail. Stan argued this way exactly, so it is about infallible vs. inerrant. If it is not, then anyone can make any assertion that they want based on whatever good or flimsy evidence they want to believe that renders the words of Scripture null and void.

“You are wrong” does not go very far in the realm of theology. If we base our beliefs on “I think you are wrong and I’m right”, we are left with believing (and disbelieving) just about anything we want to.

Greg

Greg - 27 November 2009 04:29 PM

If you will recall, the SDA theologian who argued with Stan did provide evidence based on manuscripts that were missing the texts used to support the Trinity.

If the Trinity rises or falls on one text, then we have problems. If it does, then it would behoove us to make sure there is any validity or not to his accusation. However, the Trinity doctrine is infallible and someone can believe that one text was added in by translators. The Bible is still infallible as is the doctrine. Again, we are talking about a potential translation issue, not human inspiration of the written word.

The KJV translation of ‘Sheol, Hades and Gehenna’ as the one word ‘hell’, is a translation error that has caused more grief and theological confusion than anything else. Does this negate the belief or reality of hell? No, we study it properly and see what the Bible really means by these terms and we find that the KJV translators were not accurate. We see that the original language trumps the human error. This comes with closer scrutiny and proper study instead of a dogmatic, ‘No, the Bible is inerrant, therefore ‘hell’ MUST be correct in the way it is being used here’.

I’m sorry, I just don’t see this as the ‘inerrant vs infallible’ in this situation.

guibox - 27 November 2009 05:00 PM

If the Trinity rises or falls on one text, then we have problems. If it does, then it would behoove us to make sure there is any validity or not to his accusation. However, the Trinity doctrine is infallible and someone can believe that one text was added in by translators. The Bible is still infallible as is the doctrine. Again, we are talking about a potential translation issue, not human inspiration of the written word.

The KJV translation of ‘Sheol, Hades and Gehenna’ as the one word ‘hell’, is a translation error that has caused more grief and theological confusion than anything else. Does this negate the belief or reality of hell? No, we study it properly and see what the Bible really means by these terms and we find that the KJV translators were not accurate. We see that the original language trumps the human error. This comes with closer scrutiny and proper study instead of a dogmatic, ‘No, the Bible is inerrant, therefore ‘hell’ MUST be correct in the way it is being used here’.

I’m sorry, I just don’t see this as the ‘inerrant vs infallible’ in this situation.

It sure seems like almost every thread veers back toward hell for some reason. Your argument about the KJV is a translation issue, not an inerrancy issue. When people talk about biblical inerrancy, they are talking about the original manuscripts, not whether the KJV is accurately translated or not.

What we’re talking about here is whether we can completely trust the manuscripts upon which our Bible translations are based. Someone can claim biblical infallibility but still explain away individual portions of Scripture by reasoning that the texts were not present in some manuscripts. Earlier today you made the claim that Scripture has errors in it, so you are wide open to this type of argumentation. Anyone can come to you and argue using your reasoning that the Scripture you use to establish a belief in the Trinity is erroneous, while assuring you that the Bible as a whole is infallible. This type of semantic word-play gives the impression that such a person fully trusts the Bible as a whole without actually being forced to believe what it says on a particular point he disagrees with. This was the argument made to Stan by the Adventist theologian who denied the Trinity.

To clarify this discussion, it will help me to know how you answer these two questions. Do you believe there are errors in Scripture? If you do believe there are errors in Scripture, isn’t it possible that these errors could impact the doctrines derived from Scripture?

Greg

Greg - 27 November 2009 05:26 PM

What we’re talking about here is whether we can completely trust the manuscripts upon which our Bible translations are based. Someone can claim biblical infallibility but still explain away individual portions of Scripture by reasoning that the texts were not present in some manuscripts.

Well, are they are aren’t they? If it can be proved that certain things were NOT in the original manuscripts, then we must approach it cautiously. In the case of the Trinity, if in fact this was proven that this one text was not in the original manuscript, would the Trinity doctrine fall flat? The answer is ‘no’. Therefore, the point is moot and there should be no further discussion on the invalidity of the Trinity. The issue now is not the inerrancy of the scriptures, but that people don’t want to look at the rest of the Bible. This gives them a convenient loop-hole to say ‘Ha! this doctrine cannot be trusted!

You prove it by the bible and if it stands, you move on.

Greg - 27 November 2009 05:26 PM

Earlier today you made the claim that Scripture has errors in it, so you are wide open to this type of argumentation. .

Perhaps ‘discrepencies’ might be a better word to use than ‘error’. ‘Error’ implies contradiction, mistakes, unreliability. I don’t believe this and neither does the SDA church.

Greg - 27 November 2009 05:26 PM

Anyone can come to you and argue using your reasoning that the Scripture you use to establish a belief in the Trinity is erroneous, while assuring you that the Bible as a whole is infallible.

If they have a point and the Trinity cannot be supported without that one verse, then fine. However, when someone makes an accusation, we do what we are supposed to do. We go to the Word and see how it is supported. We do this with all challenges to the reliability of the Word. Using the inerrant argument while claiming infallibility of the scriptures makes no sense considering that the scriptures support a Trinity. If people think that this one verse is what supports the Trinity than by implication they are saying that the Bible doesn’t promote it. However, if the Bible DOES promote it elsewhere, than the people are making the Bible contradict itself and still say it is infallible.

That won’t work.

I don’t not believe that there are serious errors and our versions cannot be trusted. You have to have faith and for the very, very few discrepencies we have or ‘errors’ (like a supposed add in of on verse), we can trust the scriptures. These little errors are found, explained and put to the side as dealt with. There is no issue with the reliability of the scriptures.

Sorry, I will say it again, the Trinity and errancy arguments don’t work here.

Shall we move on?

guibox - 27 November 2009 07:08 PM

Well, are they are aren’t they? If it can be proved that certain things were NOT in the original manuscripts, then we must approach it cautiously. In the case of the Trinity, if in fact this was proven that this one text was not in the original manuscript, would the Trinity doctrine fall flat? The answer is ‘no’. Therefore, the point is moot and there should be no further discussion on the invalidity of the Trinity. The issue now is not the inerrancy of the scriptures, but that people don’t want to look at the rest of the Bible. This gives them a convenient loop-hole to say ‘Ha! this doctrine cannot be trusted!

The Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19 is one of the clearest references to the Trinity in the Bible. When faced with an SDA who denied the Trinity because he believed that this text was an addition to Scripture, Stan did not run to another part of the Bible for support, he stood his ground on the basis of Scriptural inerrancy. Are you saying that Stan should have simply conceded that Matthew 28:19 was not part of the canon and tried to prove his point from other texts? With this approach, what do you do when the anti-trinitarian calls each of those texts into question?

guibox - 27 November 2009 07:08 PM

You prove it by the bible and if it stands, you move on.

According to the anti-trinitarian, the Trinity doctrine does not stand because the definition of what texts are canonical or not is different than the person who believes the whole of Scripture is inerrant. If both sides measure truth differently, one by an inerrant standard and the other by an infallible, but error-prone standard, there is no basis for continuing the discussion. This is precisely the problem when Adventism meets Evangelical Christianity because Adventists do not take a stand for inerrancy.

guibox - 27 November 2009 07:08 PM

Perhaps ‘discrepencies’ might be a better word to use than ‘error’. ‘Error’ implies contradiction, mistakes, unreliability. I don’t believe this and neither does the SDA church.

You say this, but later in your post you still use the word “error” when referring to Scripture. The SDA theologian trained at Andrews University who debated Stan also argued for error in the case of Matthew 28:19. He argued that Matthew 28:19 was unreliable because it was not canonical. The official beliefs of the Adventist church did not prevent him from taking this position.

guibox - 27 November 2009 07:08 PM

If they have a point and the Trinity cannot be supported without that one verse, then fine. However, when someone makes an accusation, we do what we are supposed to do. We go to the Word and see how it is supported. We do this with all challenges to the reliability of the Word. Using the inerrant argument while claiming infallibility of the scriptures makes no sense considering that the scriptures support a Trinity.

You must be missing my point, so I’ll repeat it. The SDA theologian debating Stan argued against the Trinity because on the basis that the Bible (specifically Matthew 28:19) cannot be trusted since it contains text that is missing in some manuscripts. Inerrancy has everything to do with this discussion because if he took the Bible as inerrant, he would not be able to argue this way. When one holds to biblical infallibility but not inerrancy, the text can be criticized, “errors” found and dropped from the canon, and the final product is what is deemed “infallible” and worthy of building doctrine upon.

guibox - 27 November 2009 07:08 PM

If people think that this one verse is what supports the Trinity than by implication they are saying that the Bible doesn’t promote it. However, if the Bible DOES promote it elsewhere, than the people are making the Bible contradict itself and still say it is infallible.

Again, do you just concede that that part of the Bible does not exist and try to persuade them from other texts, hoping they don’t pull the same trick when you bring those out? I think this is an approach that is doomed to failure because once you open concede that one part of the Scripture is erroneous, what’s to prevent the same thing from occurring elsewhere?

guibox - 27 November 2009 07:08 PM

That won’t work.

I don’t not believe that there are serious errors and our versions cannot be trusted. You have to have faith and for the very, very few discrepencies we have or ‘errors’ (like a supposed add in of on verse), we can trust the scriptures. These little errors are found, explained and put to the side as dealt with. There is no issue with the reliability of the scriptures.

If there are even small errors in Scripture, a contradiction exists within Scripture because 2 Timothy 3:16 says all of Scripture is God-breathed. Are you willing to say that the erroneous parts you’ve identified are not God-breathed, and if so, what do you do with this contradiction of 2 Timothy 3:16?

guibox - 27 November 2009 07:08 PM

Sorry, I will say it again, the Trinity and errancy arguments don’t work here.

See what I wrote above. The Trinity and inerrancy arguments are closely linked.

Greg

guibox - 27 November 2009 07:08 PM

Perhaps ‘discrepencies’ might be a better word to use than ‘error’. ‘Error’ implies contradiction, mistakes, unreliability. I don’t believe this and neither does the SDA church.

This is from an article that appeared in the May 30, 1996, issue of the Adventist Review, pp. 22-28 and has been re-posted on the White Estate website.  Source here.

Because “everything that is human is imperfect,"[14] we must accept the idea of imperfections and mistakes in both the Bible and Ellen White’s writings. This means at least two things: 1. The prophet uses his or her common, everyday language learned from childhood and improved through study, reading, and travel; there is nothing supernatural or divine in the language used. 2. The prophet can make orthographical or grammatical mistakes, as well as other kinds of language imperfections such as lapsus linguae (a slip of the tongue) or lapsus memoriae (a slip of the memory), which need to be corrected by an editor before the text is ready for publication. The editor corrects not the inspired message, but rather the noninspired language.

We find a lapsus linguae in Matthew’s Gospel, when he quotes Zechariah but mentions Jeremiah in connection with the 30 pieces of silver (Matt. 27:9, 10; Zech. 11:12, 13; Jer. 32:6-9). For a person who believes in verbal inspiration, this raises serious questions; but for those who accept that the Lord speaks to human beings in imperfect speech, this illustrates how the divine message reaches us through an imperfect language.

The following statement of Ellen White, when she quotes Paul but mentions Peter, is similar: ."The love of Christ constraineth us,” the apostle Peter declared. This was the motive that impelled the zealous disciple in his arduous labors in the cause of the gospel."[15] [p. 28] Fortunately, we have enough evidence in the Bible, as well as in the history of the Advent movement, to show us that the Holy Spirit always corrected His messengers in matters important to the church.

The Lord surprises us with His marvelous and sometimes strange ways. In communicating with His people, He has selected human beings, dedicated but faulty, using an imperfect human language, as His instruments to convey His message. We must be grateful to our heavenly Father that He did not select a “superhuman” language understood by only a few select persons, but chose to use our own imperfect, common way of seeing and understanding things.

In accepting His ways, we also must be careful not to confuse the content with the container. We must not discard the “treasure” inside just because the “vessel” is imperfect and sometimes unworthy.[16]

The whole argument of “infallible but not inerrant” doesn’t even make sense. Inerrant means that it is without error. But according to the dictionary, “infallible” means that it is not even capable of error. So “infallible” should actually be a stronger statement than “inerrant.” For example, Adventists say that Jesus never sinned but that He was capable of sinning. In other words, they are saying that Jesus was “fallible” (capable of sinning) and won’t admit that He was “infallible” (incapable of sinning), even though they say that He never sinned (the equivalent of “inerrant").

But you can’t, as they try to do with Scripture, affirm something to be “infallible” without it consequently being “inerrant” also.

Jeremy

Inerrancy is a very important tenet of evangelical or Reformed faith.

It is hard to imagine that the original manuscripts of God’s Word contain errors.

In most instances when a person or group of persons or a denomination renounces the view of inerrancy of scripture, this inevitably leads down the road of liberalism. This is illustrated in the views of the Maxwell group or heavenly sanctuary folks.

And the discovery of all the problems with EGW and her borrowing have led to people assuming that the same kind of problems exist in the Bible. This is fallacious reasoning.

However, it must be honestly stated that there are problems in the translations of the Bible that we have today. There is honest dispute over whether John 8’s account of the woman caught in adultery belongs in the canon.

The person that argued against the Trinity with me on an SDA forum was basing his entire argument on the fact that Matthew 28:19 was added later, and he was appealing to one of the church fathers. I don’t think he has a high respect for the authority of scripture in general. He totally ignored my other arguments from scripture. We don’t need Matthew 28:19 to prove the Trinity.

Stan