tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post6615603937106961425..comments2023-04-02T03:07:27.930-07:00Comments on Reformed Academic: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing? False Prophets? Comments on Bredenhof’s Position Statements on Creation and EvolutionReformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-79221050882324967832013-03-15T11:22:07.173-07:002013-03-15T11:22:07.173-07:00We are making no distinctions. What we said applie...We are making no distinctions. What we said applies to all of Scripture.<br /><br />The <i>Reformed Academic</i> Team (Tony Jelsma, Freda Oosterhoff, Arnold Sikkema, and Jitse van der Meer)Reformed Academichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-61000826373380690812013-03-15T10:28:58.911-07:002013-03-15T10:28:58.911-07:00Josh, you asked: "Do you think that every asp...Josh, you asked: "Do you think that every aspect of every text that the divine author creates is trustworthy?" <br /><br />Answer: Yes. <br /><br />Thanks for the exchange! <br /><br />Bill DeJong<br />Hamilton, ONBill DeJongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-7597981767594842602013-03-14T19:40:21.042-07:002013-03-14T19:40:21.042-07:00To The Reformed Academic Team,
Thank you for your...To The <i>Reformed Academic</i> Team,<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful response. <br /><br />In it you say, "We consider the notions of infallibility and inerrancy to be derived from that of the authority of Scripture which in turn is derived from that of the Author of Scripture. Since the Author of Scripture is trustworthy and speaks truth, therefore Scripture whether in its autographs or in what we have now is truthful and trustworthy."<br /><br />Just for clarification, does this truthfulness and trustworthiness extend to every part of the Bible or only certain parts, say doctrine? <br /><br />Josh Walker<br />Hamilton, ON<br /><br />P.S. Am I to assume that something that is posted by the handle "Reformed Academic" represents and is endorsed by <i>all</i> the contributors to this blog? Josh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-57537967125155166712013-03-14T19:28:55.665-07:002013-03-14T19:28:55.665-07:00Josh,
On March 13, you wrote: “I was trying to a...Josh, <br /><br />On March 13, you wrote: “I was trying to ascertain what RA’s views are on the authority of the Bible.” Since your question was not only directed to Bill DeJong, but also to us, our short answer is that we agree with Rev. DeJong. We couldn’t have said it any better. Here is our longer response. We consider the notions of infallibility and inerrancy to be derived from that of the authority of Scripture which in turn is derived from that of the Author of Scripture. Since the Author of Scripture is trustworthy and speaks truth, therefore Scripture whether in its autographs or in what we have now is truthful and trustworthy. This is what we believe was originally meant by infallibility and inerrancy. Unfortunately, the term inerrancy has come to be associated with a modern mindset that places too much trust in reason and science and has moved away from the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit. So we have a choice. We can try to return to the original meaning of the term inerrancy or abandon it. As we see it this choice is a matter of strategy, not of principle because we all accept Scripture as truthful and trustworthy. <br /><br />We think this choice should be determined by the needs of believers, particularly the need for clear communication and the need to build each other up in the faith. If we were to return to the original meaning of inerrancy we would have to make every effort to take distance from its abuses. This would include communicating the view outlined above to the members of NAPARC with whom the Canadian Reformed Churches are apparently committed to inerrancy. This is a communications nightmare because inerrancy has far too many definitions, is a highly controversial term, and will require that the community be educated and agreed on its meaning.<br /><br />On the other hand, we can try to distance ourselves from the abuses of inerrancy and stick with the terms truthfulness and trustworthiness of Scripture. As we see it, this will communicate clearly and in a simple way what is intended by the authority of Scripture because these terms point to the authority of its Author. It will contribute to building each other up in the faith because it will avoid bringing the discussion about inerrancy into the church where it will create unnecessary confusion. <br /><br />We see no point in referring to the original autographs. You take the reference to the original autographs as a reference to the trustworthiness of God. We think this is an unusual way of referring to God which we would not use. We also think the focus on autographs is another manifestation of what Rev. Bill DeJong refers to as a positivistic attitude that betrays too much confidence in science.<br /><br />The <i>Reformed Academic</i> TeamReformed Academichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-1702593625898258332013-03-14T19:08:07.621-07:002013-03-14T19:08:07.621-07:00Bill,
So is that a 'yes' or a 'no...Bill, <br /><br />So is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?<br /><br />You said, "Part of my burden is to shift the debate from the TEXT with all of its attendant issues (variants, text traditions, scribal errors, translations, etc.,) to the absolute trustworthiness of its AUTHOR."<br /><br />I could not agree more. That is why I was <i> very careful</i> in my last question to include the following: "everything contained in the <i>original autographs</i>." The original autographs do not contain "variants, text traditions, scribal errors, translations, etc." <br /><br />So, let me ask this again, but this time in your categorize. Do you think that <i>every aspect</i> of <i>every text</i> that the divine author creates is trustworthy? <br /><br />Josh Walker<br />Hamilton, ONJosh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-80180583928944913742013-03-14T18:14:10.029-07:002013-03-14T18:14:10.029-07:00Josh, that was both positive and positivistic of y...Josh, that was both positive and positivistic of you to say you agree with me 94.765%. You evidently are one for scientific precision and in this sense the text of your post is unlike the text of Scripture! Part of my burden is to shift the debate from the TEXT with all of its attendant issues (variants, text traditions, scribal errors, translations, etc.,) to the absolute trustworthiness of its AUTHOR. Put differently, I'm trying to show that Scripture for Christians is unlike the Koran for Muslims (for whom the category of inerrancy seems to fit better). <br /><br />Thus, even though our Bible versions (NIV, ESV, etc.) are mere and sometimes poor translations of Greek and Hebrew texts, some of whose manuscript pedigree is uncertain, God is completely trustworthy. Let's endeavour, for the glory of God, to locate the best text and produce the best translation, but let's not reduce God's trustworthiness to our fallible decisions about text choice, variants, or translations. <br /><br />Lastly, the best and most convincing presentation of the Bible's authority is made, not with sophisticated argumentation, but in the lives of those who submit to it, who accept the script because they find the divine playwright trustworthy and readily participate in the drama it narrates.<br /><br />Bill DeJong<br />Hamilton, ONBill DeJongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-1643725884176787642013-03-14T11:31:01.487-07:002013-03-14T11:31:01.487-07:00Bill,
For sake of brevity, I will not respond poi...Bill,<br /><br />For sake of brevity, I will not respond point by point because I agree with about 94.765% of you last comment. I am still left, however, with this lingering question: do you, and those who post on Reformed Academic, believe that this idea of trustworthiness applies to the entire Bible ( i. e., everything contained in the original autographs)?Josh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-3575168944441956602013-03-14T08:07:12.044-07:002013-03-14T08:07:12.044-07:00Thanks for engaging me in such amicable fashion, J...Thanks for engaging me in such amicable fashion, Josh. I don't want this to become a prolonged debate, but permit me several brief responses.<br /><br />1. When I critique the term "inerrancy" on the grounds that we should speak of the Bible in terms of its own approach, my objection is not to a word not found in the Bible (as you recognize), but to a way of thinking (i.e., a category) that I believe isn't sufficiently grounded in Scripture (more about this below). I would argue that "trinity" as a way of thinking is sufficiently grounded in Scripture.<br /><br />2. I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the term "inerrancy" is more advantageous than the term "trustworthiness." I'm appealing to the Belgic Confession, and you to the Chicago Statement. It seems the former has priority.<br /><br />3. At one point you questioned whether my citation from the Belgic Confession ("we believe without a doubt all things contained therein") proves my point about the confessional preference for the concept of trustworthiness. But what does it mean "to believe without a doubt," but to trust and to trust fully? Put negatively, if I don't trust, I doubt.<br /><br />4. At issue here is the nature of Scripture as God's revelation which I understand to be deeply covenantal. If the best institutional analogy for covenant is marriage, then the words of God to the church are analogous to the loving words of a husband to his wife. A wife doesn't think of her husband's pledges (primarily at least) in terms of possible errors, but in terms of fidelity and trustworthiness.<br /><br />5. Put yet differently and perhaps more helpfully, the language of "error" evokes for me the realm of mathematical equations and scientific precision while the language of "trustworthiness" suggests marital fidelity. This is why I allege that the term "inerrancy" is indicative of empiricism and positivism, where certainty is associated with facts and acquired through methods and equations.<br /><br />6. Thus, an emphasis on inerrancy has real potential to derail a faithful reception of God's Word by making one of the objectives of Bible interpretation the demonstration of inerrancy. Only in this paradigm is Jesus allegation about the mustard seed as the smallest seed problematic. I reach the same conclusion about the mustard seed as the inerrantists (and the inerrantists, because of their paradigm, are forced to say something about it). The difference is that Jesus' statement never struck me as problematic in the first place.<br /><br />7. One byproduct of a commitment to inerrancy as a category for understanding biblical revelation is forced harmonizations. There are, of course, many natural harmonizations to apparent discrepancies in the Bible. In other cases, however, there are discrepancies for which there is no natural harmonization and for which I feel no particular burden to harmonize. I suppose I'm content with some real (and perceived) discrepancies in areas where contentment is impossible for an inerrantist.<br /><br />8. The issue, ultimately, is: what kind of text is Scripture? Because it is a covenantal text, the concept of "trustworthiness" best describes its character.<br /><br />This turned out to be much longer than I anticipated, and I hope my remarks are helpful, illuminating, and not as random as I perceive they might be.<br /><br />Bill DeJong<br />Hamilton, ONBill DeJongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-8192723885254331382013-03-13T11:13:57.735-07:002013-03-13T11:13:57.735-07:00(continued...)
Bill: (b) the term utilizes a cate...(continued...)<br /><br />Bill: (b) the term utilizes a category the Bible does not apply to itself and is itself indicative of a modern, empiricist, positivistic worldview, <br /><br />Response: Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this? Of course the Bible does not use the term "inerrancy", but it does not use plunty of other terms that we think are proper to use (i.e. "trinity", which it could be argued is an Aristotelian category because it distinguishes between essence and person). However, those who hold to inerrancy argue that what they mean by inerrancy is the same thing that the BIble means when it says trustworthy. Again, the term, as we both argue is irrelevant, it is what is meant by the term. Thus, by my questions, I was trying to ascertain what RA's view are on the authority of the Bible. <br /><br />Bill: (c) the term is meaningless if (1) applied to original autographs which are inaccessible (2) exclusive of scribal errors, the presence of which every Reformed theologian admits. <br /><br />Response: Is the term trustworthy meaningless? Does it apply to the original autographs? If not, in what sense are the manuscripts "trustworthy" if they contain whole chapters of the Bible that are not in the originals? Further, those who refer to the autographs as inerrant are not so much commenting about an autograph we possess, but rather they are commenting about the nature of the God who inspired the autographs.<br /><br />Bill: For these reasons, and others, I much prefer the language of Scripture's "trustworthiness." This is a category the Bible uses of itself and one the continental Reformed confessions endorse. Consider article 5 of the Belgic Confession: "we believe without a doubt all things contained therein." <br /><br />Response: The term to prefer is "trustworthiness" because this is the continental Reformed view. To prove this you cite the BC article 5. However, this article says nothing about the Bible being trustworthy (i.e. the term is not used). Could not someone who holds to inerrancy agree with this article? Further, is the article referring to the autographs or the manuscript tradition? Surely, it is not referring to the longer ending of Mark, is it? <br /><br />Bill: So rather than utilize a category so indicative of an empiricist worldview and so unhelpful, apart from numerous qualifications, why not utilize the language of Scripture and the continental Reformed confessions?<br /><br />Response: The term "unhelpful" here is a bit confusing. Do you mean unhelpful to you? I am sure that the authors of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy find the term helpful. Further, why does the term "inerrancy" stem from an "empiricist worldview"? Even RA in defining the term "infallible" uses the concept of inerrancy (albeit in the negative). Either way is not an "empiricist worldview" in play? Further, even if it can be show (which it has not been yet) that the concept of inerrancy stems from an "empiricist worldview", why is this a bad thing? Again, we use terms and concepts from the whole history of thought. Why is the time period in which a concept or term arises automatically problematic? <br /><br />Once again, thank you for the interaction. I hope, if nothing else, the views held by RA are brought out clearer so that everyone understands what is being affirmed and denied. <br /><br />Josh Walker<br />Hamilton, ONJosh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-31288918397400641302013-03-13T11:13:27.838-07:002013-03-13T11:13:27.838-07:00Bill,
Thank you for taking the time to interact w...Bill,<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to interact with my comment. For ease of responding, I will post your comments and then respond accordingly.<br /><br />Bill: Josh, I don't think it's fair to allege that Reformed Academic affiliates deny inerrancy when their stated complaint is that the term is "virtually meaningless." <br /><br />Response: Point taken. I was trying to speak with brevity, but brevity might not have been my friend. Let me ask it this way: why do they (Reformed Academic) in this post say that the term "inerrancy" is "virtually meaningless," while defining it as "the idea of an absolutely errorless Bible" (in the post they linked to above)? Can it be both? Further, the reason given for this "meaninglessness" is that there are many definitions. Why not use the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy as the definition? Also, we often use terms that have many definitions. The term "Reformed" comes to mind. <br /><br /><br />Bill: The charge that they "deny inerrancy" has potential to prejudice the debate by misconstruing the argument to be about the Bible's authority rather than about a term sometimes used to defend the Bible's authority.<br /><br />Response: I, for one, do not care what term is used to describe one's view of the Bible. What matters is what is meant by a term. Further, my comments were precisely abou the Bible's authority and how those who post on RA understand it. After reading the provided link, I understand their view to be "infallibility", which "has generally been interpreted as implying not factual inerrancy, but the Bible’s absolute trustworthiness in matters of doctrine, faith, and morals." This is helpful for me as a reader to understand where RA is coming from on the issue of Biblical authority. <br /><br />Bill: Moreover, let me hypothesize about the reasons why there's hesitation about the term inerrancy: (a) theologians at the federational seminary have been critical of term, <br /><br />Response: Good to know. (continued...)Josh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-2465269158117699572013-03-13T09:12:42.529-07:002013-03-13T09:12:42.529-07:00Josh, I don't think it's fair to allege th...Josh, I don't think it's fair to allege that Reformed Academic affiliates deny inerrancy when their stated complaint is that the term is "virtually meaningless." The charge that they "deny inerrancy" has potential to prejudice the debate by misconstruing the argument to be about the Bible's authority rather than about a term sometimes used to defend the Bible's authority.<br /><br />Moreover, let me hypothesize about the reasons why there's hesitation about the term inerrancy: (a) theologians at the federational seminary have been critical of term, (b) the term utilizes a category the Bible does not apply to itself and is itself indicative of a modern, empiricist, positivistic worldview, (c) the term is meaningless if (1) applied to original autographs which are inaccessible (2) exclusive of scribal errors, the presence of which every Reformed theologian admits. <br /><br />For these reasons, and others, I much prefer the language of Scripture's "trustworthiness." This is a category the Bible uses of itself and one the continental Reformed confessions endorse. Consider article 5 of the Belgic Confession: "we believe without a doubt all things contained therein." <br /><br />So rather than utilize a category so indicative of an empiricist worldview and so unhelpful, apart from numerous qualifications, why not utilize the language of Scripture and the continental Reformed confessions?<br /><br />For what's it worth, when J.I. Packer (one of the authors of the Chicago statement) is asked what is meant by the inerrancy of Scripture, he apparently says: "its trustworthiness." <br /><br />Bill DeJong<br />Hamilton, ONBill DeJongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-78558183934025475922013-03-13T08:50:03.497-07:002013-03-13T08:50:03.497-07:00Thanks, Josh, for your inquiry. Let us direct you ...Thanks, Josh, for your inquiry. Let us direct you to <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2009/10/biblical-inerrancy.html" rel="nofollow">this piece</a> which was posted over three years ago on the topic. We think Vandergaag's essay, along with the ensuing discussion in the comments, does a good job of answering your questions.Reformed Academichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-73250159478705954832013-03-13T07:37:41.661-07:002013-03-13T07:37:41.661-07:00Thanks Reformed Academic for this. Thanks a lot. W...Thanks Reformed Academic for this. Thanks a lot. We, as CanRC churches do not need any kind of extra-confessional statements to be adopted, that's for sure. And thanks for pointing out the distinctions between evolution and evolutionism. Especially that you do not believe in animal life evolving into human life, and that you believe human life is special. And also that the reformers left scientific inquiry as a separate field. The dangers of exegesis or a particular hermeneutic proclaimed as infallible, not Scripture were also explained well. <br /> <br />As Donald Rumsfeld (former US Defense Secretary) said: "There are known unknowns." Indeed there are. And this is not just a post-modern statement. Except for a brief period in human history of maybe 200 years when mankind believed everything could be known (Rationalism, then Modernism), brought on indeed by advances in science and engineering, post-modernism has helped (thanks to science in part also), place man back in a less prideful biblical perspective - the crown of creation, not the king or dictator himself. <br /> <br />Tim Denbok<br />Hamilton, ONTim Denbokhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16831922662050736061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-55052321349232591362013-03-12T19:12:11.528-07:002013-03-12T19:12:11.528-07:00Regarding point #1, I understand that you are deny...Regarding point #1, I understand that you are denying the term "inerrancy", but could you outline a positive view of the Scriptures? Does the Bible contain any factual errors? Do you affirm "infallibility"? What do you understand the different to be between the concepts termed "inerrancy" and "infallibility"? <br /><br />Josh Walker<br />Hamilton, ONJosh Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640837095855180429noreply@blogger.com