You don't own the term "inerrancy". The people who kill the concept with a thousand qualifications are those who attempt to apply it to human authorial intention. By contrast, application in terms of divine authorial intention is simple, precise, and secures plenary inspiration and divine authority down to every jot and tittle.
I see some problems with your perspective. You say there is progressive revelation. Did that stop at some point? The Baha'i Faith claims it has continued till today. Are they wrong?
@@Randal_Rauser "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." But how do you know that isn't one of the erroneous statements introduced by a human writer?
I generally like the majority of your work but this strikes me as poor reasoning. "God inerrantly included errors" is jumping the shark to me. It has the stench of bad apologetical harmonization. The same type of fuzzy thinking that defends genocide and sweeps obvious contradictions in the text under the rug. I understand that in order to assess the validity of Biblical passages we need to understand what genre we are reading. Matthew's infancy narrative is largely fiction but that doesn't make it errant. He is describing Jesus as a newer and greater Moses throughout. We need to judge its accuracy by the point that is being made, not by modern fact-literal standards of historicity alien to Biblical authors. Is Jesus the new and greater Moses? If so what Matthew writes in parts might be fictional but the account is true. If parts were not intended to be biographical and the fact-literal modern sense we shouldn't treat them as such. So genre considerations are extremely important as is understanding that God accommodated his language. But we are fact literal westerners. Saying the Bible is inerrant means what it says is correct to most people. Outside of a few theologians in their ivory towers, this borders on a disingenuous equivocation. Pew warmers will be confused by it. Inerrancy needs to be dropped as a term all together IMO. Scripture makes us wise for salvation and serves the purpose for which God intends it. End it there. Textually speaking, no one has ever even possessed an inerrant Bible. The Bible has always been imperfect but good enough to accomplish God's salvific purposes. God just doesn't care about inerrancy. A God who inspires perfect scripture can inspire perfect copies. Allowing his perfectly imperfect plenary inspiration to be imperfectly passed down renders all this obsolete. You can learn from anything, even hate filled literature, Biblical or extra biblical. It doesn't mean the Psalms are inerrant, just that God can use them. You appear to be redefining "error" in order to retain the party line of "inerrancy." From my perspective you have moved the goalpost so far you are in another stadium altogether. inerrancy has lost any real meaning.Doctrinal fideism. Doctrinal fideism. Like concordism, even very reasonable Christians can't let go of the intellectual security blanket (inerrancy).
"How an Inerrant Bible Can Have Errors"
Rauser is starting to learn the art of honest clickbait.
I'm really thankful for your work in this area!
Just keep it simple and say you’re not an inerrantist. Save the term from dying the death of a thousand nuances.
You don't own the term "inerrancy". The people who kill the concept with a thousand qualifications are those who attempt to apply it to human authorial intention. By contrast, application in terms of divine authorial intention is simple, precise, and secures plenary inspiration and divine authority down to every jot and tittle.
@@Randal_Rauser I’d like to hear more on this, is there any where you could point me or would you be so kind as to expand on your point?
@@reetgoodministries1273 amzn.to/3FEJqyw
I see some problems with your perspective. You say there is progressive revelation. Did that stop at some point? The Baha'i Faith claims it has continued till today. Are they wrong?
Progressive revelation is not my view. It's Christianity. Christians believe revelation ended, e.g. Jude 3.
@@Randal_Rauser "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." But how do you know that isn't one of the erroneous statements introduced by a human writer?
can't add much to this except: well said
I generally like the majority of your work but this strikes me as poor reasoning. "God inerrantly included errors" is jumping the shark to me. It has the stench of bad apologetical harmonization. The same type of fuzzy thinking that defends genocide and sweeps obvious contradictions in the text under the rug. I understand that in order to assess the validity of Biblical passages we need to understand what genre we are reading. Matthew's infancy narrative is largely fiction but that doesn't make it errant. He is describing Jesus as a newer and greater Moses throughout. We need to judge its accuracy by the point that is being made, not by modern fact-literal standards of historicity alien to Biblical authors. Is Jesus the new and greater Moses? If so what Matthew writes in parts might be fictional but the account is true. If parts were not intended to be biographical and the fact-literal modern sense we shouldn't treat them as such. So genre considerations are extremely important as is understanding that God accommodated his language.
But we are fact literal westerners. Saying the Bible is inerrant means what it says is correct to most people. Outside of a few theologians in their ivory towers, this borders on a disingenuous equivocation. Pew warmers will be confused by it. Inerrancy needs to be dropped as a term all together IMO. Scripture makes us wise for salvation and serves the purpose for which God intends it. End it there. Textually speaking, no one has ever even possessed an inerrant Bible. The Bible has always been imperfect but good enough to accomplish God's salvific purposes. God just doesn't care about inerrancy. A God who inspires perfect scripture can inspire perfect copies. Allowing his perfectly imperfect plenary inspiration to be imperfectly passed down renders all this obsolete. You can learn from anything, even hate filled literature, Biblical or extra biblical. It doesn't mean the Psalms are inerrant, just that God can use them. You appear to be redefining "error" in order to retain the party line of "inerrancy." From my perspective you have moved the goalpost so far you are in another stadium altogether. inerrancy has lost any real meaning.Doctrinal fideism. Doctrinal fideism. Like concordism, even very reasonable Christians can't let go of the intellectual security blanket (inerrancy).
It's good you're not living in the 16th century Europe. Otherwise the Holy Papal Office of the Inquisition would have a stake prepared for you Randall
I don't know if you're married Randal. But your wife probably knows not to ask you for a DIRECT ANSWER to a basic question