Steve

Your response is refreshingly candid. I do so appreciate such. Nor do I see, as you have explained it, your stated position as contrary to me, albeit our positions are obviously not identical.

The Lord continue to bless us all as we seek to better understand the engrafted word of God which is able to save our souls.

With that, I am…

Peter

Peter, I think this statements sums the whole issue up! My students often accuse me of trying to “over-analyze” a story or a poem (and sometimes they may be right. After all, if we took all the texts at face value, I’d be out of a job, right?).

That’s the crux of the matter here, isn’t it: how precise do we want/need to be in defining just what “inspiration” means? With that in mind, let me take up John Mann’s invitation/challenge to state where I stand on the Chicago Statement (#55):

There’s much in the document that I can affirm without reservation. The excerpt Chris Johnson quotes in #62 is one example, along with Articles 1-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-18 (if it matters, I used the version at http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html).

The 3 remaining Articles are (as Obama said to Warren’s question about when life begins) “above my pay grade.” To wit:

Article 6 affirms that inspiration was a word-for-word affair. I’ve read and heard good arguments on both sides of this, and I’ve not done much study on my own about it. All I can say at the moment is that it’s less of a dealbreaker for me than for others who have posted here.

Article 13 affirms “the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term.” That may have worked back in 1978, but, as I said above, I think it’s been redefined to connote a good deal more.

Article 16 affirms that “the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.” I’m not enough of a church historian to have a firm opinion on this question.

If I were to either affirm or deny those statements, I’d need to be able to defend my position if challenged. I can do that with inspiration broadly defined, but I can’t do it with these specific statements. Therefore, it seems to me that the most intellectually and spiritually honest thing to do is leave them open questions.

Do you see where I’m coming from? It’s as if you and I were walking down a path and I wanted to stop my journey before you did. It’s not that I’m going *against* you; it’s just that I’m either not prepared to go further or don’t see a pressing need to do so. I’m comfortable with the level of precision I’ve reached in my understanding of inspiration, but I’m open to digging deeper if new circumstances or new conviction from the Spirit call for it.

I do understand my quote you offered, Alex, linked “ultimate authority” with “an infallible authority”. The problem as I see it is, your commentary focused on neither.

Rather, your focus was on *interpretation*—”…nobody…doubts…it was right to *interpret* scriptures…observationally rather than scientifically…” And again, “The ultimate authority for this *interpretation*…”

Presently, we are not in dialog concerning interpretation proper of the Bible. Nor whether or not there exists an “ultimate authority” for so doing. Instead, the question of inerrancy focuses distinctly on what Scripture *is* and how it got that way.

With that, I am…

Peter

My comment was about your idea linking infallible and ultimate authority.

Think again.

The plum you place into our peach pie is tasty no doubt but totally irrelevant. We are speaking here of of inspiration and subsequently inscriptuation.

Better to save your example for a potential discussion on hermeneutics. Not an inerrantist here, I’d wager, argues for an inerrant interpreter. If they do, I certainly like them to speak up.

With that, I am…

Peter

I will not take the time to dig up all the explanations. But I think it could easily be demonstrated that the authors of the Baptist Faith & Message, 1925, 1963, and 2000 were not referring to a particular translation but to the original inspired manuscripts of the Bible. I think it can also be demonstrated that this has been the historic view of the overwhelming majority of Christianity for about 2,000 years. The value of a translation is how closely and accurately it presents the Word of God from the original languages. And it is the translators’ and textual critics’ job to study the many manuscripts to get back, as close as possible, to the originals.

I know we don’t have the original manuscripts, but divinely inspired inerrant manuscripts sure make a difference. Would you rather have numerous copies of a divinely inspired perfect manuscript, or numerous copies of a manuscript that had errors in the first place?

The writers of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 were well aware of all this, but I’m sure did not desire to go into an extensive explanation of each theological point and detail. Most easily understand what they were saying.

And, by the way John Mann, good post.
David R. Brumbelow

With that I am
Robert