On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:14:04 -0600 you wrote:
TJ>My question is, if one is a Christian and believes in the
>inerrancy of scripture, how does one defend one's belief in either
>or both of these ideas? I am particularly interested in the old
>earth arguments used by Christians who have training in geology.
RP>In my experience with non-Christians, I've found that defending the
>primary truth claims of Christianity (i.e., who was Jesus and why was
>He here?) are more important than trying to show inerrancy (don't
>mistake me -- I *do* hold to inerrancy). It's easier to deal with
>inerrancy with Christians than with non-Christians (who aren't even
>buying the notion of Jesus=God).
I agree. The Bible nowhere says it is "inerrant", and it demonstrably
does contain what could be claimed to be "errors". For example, it
could be claimed that the Bible teaches that PI = 3 (1Ki 7:23 2Chr
4:2). Other common claimed "errors" are:
Mt 10:10 and Lk 9:3 where Jesus is quoted as saying not to take even a
"staff":
"take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals OR A STAFF;
for the worker is worth his keep." (Mt 10:10); "Take nothing for the
journey--NO STAFF, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic." (Lk
9:3)
yet Mk 6:8 where the instructions included taking a staff: "Take
nothing for the journey EXCEPT A STAFF--no bread, no bag, no money in
your belts." (emphasis mine)
The above can be explained satisfactorily, but it is so complex that
that the doctrine "dies the death of a thousand qualifications". The
point is that the Bible doesn't have to be inerrant on minor details
to be substantially true. A lot of energy is spent by Christians
trying to prove the Bible in inerrant, when it is irrelevant. The
telephone book is inerrant, but does not save.
RP>What is important is to show that the Biblical text is reliably
>close to the original, that the Bible has repeatedly been shown to be
>historically accurate, that Jesus must be one of lunatic, con man, or
>God.
Agreed. The luminous personality of Jesus is a fact that is just
ignored by naturalists. The evidence for His life and death is as well
established as any historical fact. If He wasn't God, who was He? How
did He arrange for Himself to be born in Bethehem as predicted by the
prophet Micah hundreds of years before? (Mic 5:2; Mt 2:6). Note: if
He wasn't, then He couldn't be the Messiah and the Jews would have
exposed it. That they didn't shows He was.
RP>While dealing with origins is important, too often it is a
>distraction from the Gospel message. The important thing is: who
>was Jesus? -- this matters much more than the issue of whether 6
>literal days were used for creation.
Yes. See above.
RP>In particular, the origins issue to press is that many
>evolutionists are really inserting philosophy into their science, and
>are pushing atheism, implicitly or explicitly. Johnson is very good
at pointing this out.
Yes. PJ is stabbing away at the soft underbelly of Darwinism, its
underpinning by a naturalistic philosophy:
"One example will indicate the problems that are ahead for Darwinists
as the debate continues and expands. Michael Ruse, a leading academic
defender of Darwinism, gave a talk about me at the 1993 annual meeting
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The talk
was supposed to be an attack, but Ruse actually conceded the main
point at issue between us. Darwinism is founded upon a naturalistic
picture of reality, he conceded, and this assumption needs to be
defended honestly rather than concealed. That concession will be
fatal if the evolutionary scientists agree to make it, because the
Darwinian version of evolution has hitherto been presented to the
public as value-free fact. Biologists have authority to tell us facts
that they know from the study of biology, but they have no
intellectual or moral authority to order us to adopt a particular
philosophy that they happen to prefer. Once the crucial influence of
philosophy is admitted, nonbiologists and even ordinary people must be
allowed to decide whether to believe what the biologists are saying."
(Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin",
Christianity Today, October 24, 1994, p26)
RP>Authors re Biblical accounts and Jesus' identity who are good
>resources: Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, James Sire, F.F. Bruce,
>Ronald Nash, etc.
Also:
Moreland J.P., "Scaling the Secular City", Baker: Grand Rapids MI,
1987
Craig W.L., "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics",
Crossway Books: Wheaton Ill., Revised Edition, 1994
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------