Comments on: Letters to a Friend 2: Infallibility http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/letters-to-a-friend-2-infallibility ...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:21:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jendi http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/letters-to-a-friend-2-infallibility/comment-page-1#comment-119928 Jendi Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:59:19 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/letters-to-a-friend-2-infallibility#comment-119928 Michael, thank you for giving me a way to think about Biblical infallibility that acknowledges human interpretive error. That really sets my mind at ease. But once we concede that we are fallible interpreters, what good does it do us that the Bible is infallible? How can we access that quality? i.e. what does it add to say "If the Bible teaches X, it does so infallibly" when we've admitted that we can't be certain the Bible DOES teach X? This problem reminds me of Kant's distinction btw the noumenal realm of pure truth, which we can never reach, and the phenomenal realm of human understanding, which is the truth as seen "through a glass darkly" (interpreted thru our mental categories and limitations). If we can never break thru that glass ceiling, as it were, why bother positing a noumenal realm at all? Hence postmodern skepticism. "Truth" as an ideal withers away because it has been (mis)defined as something completely separate from the world of pluralistic, uncertain interpretation that we inescapably inhabit. Michael, thank you for giving me a way to think about Biblical infallibility that acknowledges human interpretive error. That really sets my mind at ease. But once we concede that we are fallible interpreters, what good does it do us that the Bible is infallible? How can we access that quality? i.e. what does it add to say “If the Bible teaches X, it does so infallibly” when we’ve admitted that we can’t be certain the Bible DOES teach X?

This problem reminds me of Kant’s distinction btw the noumenal realm of pure truth, which we can never reach, and the phenomenal realm of human understanding, which is the truth as seen “through a glass darkly” (interpreted thru our mental categories and limitations). If we can never break thru that glass ceiling, as it were, why bother positing a noumenal realm at all? Hence postmodern skepticism. “Truth” as an ideal withers away because it has been (mis)defined as something completely separate from the world of pluralistic, uncertain interpretation that we inescapably inhabit.

]]> By: pbandj http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/letters-to-a-friend-2-infallibility/comment-page-1#comment-119730 pbandj Wed, 01 Aug 2007 04:07:36 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/letters-to-a-friend-2-infallibility#comment-119730 michael i think you make a great pt in your comment about the infallibility and barth. i agree with you. as far as your post in general, i think you excellently deal with a sticky issue. there are so many people who say there is no Truth because we are all errant. we are errant, but there is Truth. we do not always fully understand the Truth, but we seek it. it is important therefore that as you said, we remain humble and gracious. only then can we speak of Truth and errancy in the same sentence. peter michael

i think you make a great pt in your comment about the infallibility and barth. i agree with you.

as far as your post in general, i think you excellently deal with a sticky issue. there are so many people who say there is no Truth because we are all errant. we are errant, but there is Truth. we do not always fully understand the Truth, but we seek it. it is important therefore that as you said, we remain humble and gracious. only then can we speak of Truth and errancy in the same sentence.

peter

]]> By: Michael Spencer http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/letters-to-a-friend-2-infallibility/comment-page-1#comment-119618 Michael Spencer Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:23:24 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/letters-to-a-friend-2-infallibility#comment-119618 If you search this site on the topic of inerrancy or the Bible, you'll see that my claim to fame is that I don't like or use the term inerrant to describe the Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible in its function as God's revelation. I do not believe it is infallible in other ways or that it needs to be. It is authoritative and true because it says what God wants it to say, but it is not infallible in the same way God is, or infallible beyond what it was intended to do. Certainly our contemporary Bibles are fallible translations. I agree with the statement on scripture in WCF 1, and I think Karl Barth had the best theological views on scripture. Scripture's authority is the God who inspired it and the Christ revealed in it. If you search this site on the topic of inerrancy or the Bible, you’ll see that my claim to fame is that I don’t like or use the term inerrant to describe the Bible.

I believe the Bible is infallible in its function as God’s revelation. I do not believe it is infallible in other ways or that it needs to be. It is authoritative and true because it says what God wants it to say, but it is not infallible in the same way God is, or infallible beyond what it was intended to do.

Certainly our contemporary Bibles are fallible translations.

I agree with the statement on scripture in WCF 1, and I think Karl Barth had the best theological views on scripture. Scripture’s authority is the God who inspired it and the Christ revealed in it.

]]> By: shaungroves http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/letters-to-a-friend-2-infallibility/comment-page-1#comment-119617 shaungroves Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:12:34 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/letters-to-a-friend-2-infallibility#comment-119617 Michael, is it also accurate to say, in your fallible opinion, that the infallible "Bible" is not the version(s) we have today in English, for example, but the original document? Or would you say that infallibility applies also to every copy and translation of scripture? Michael, is it also accurate to say, in your fallible opinion, that the infallible “Bible” is not the version(s) we have today in English, for example, but the original document? Or would you say that infallibility applies also to every copy and translation of scripture?

]]>