"I'm not an inerrantist, but I'm not an 'errantist' either. Both are wrong. Man makes these opposing points of view. The modernist agenda is behind both."That statement speaks for itself. Sandri just used either/or logic to deny that he believes in either/or logic, showing that he's gone unabashedly postmodern. Either Scripture has errors or it does not. Either those statements are wrong or they are not. Either man makes those views or he does not. Either the modernist agenda is behind them or it is not. The argument is utterly self-defeating and sorely disappointing. Francis Schaeffer would be appalled and I'm saddened. Schaeffer, like all of us, had his flaws, but he influenced so many for good. His legacy is better preserved by works like Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth.
Matt, I don't know if you know about Cedarville University, but it's a similar story. Last year they fired four of their most conservative profs. It'll be interesting to see where they end up, as they still officially stand for traditional evangelical doctrines.
Yeah, I forget where I heard about the Cedarville incident, but I read up on it. In fact, I read Cedarville's official statement about the incident. The length they went to to say that their commitment to biblical authority wasn't wavering looked defensive and suspicious to me.
The length they went to to say that their commitment to biblical authority wasn't wavering looked defensive and suspicious to me.
As Shakespeare is often misquoted, "Methinks he doth protest too much." (Actually, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks.")
Hi Randy,
Either you have quit beating your wife and kids, or you have not. It has to be one or the other, right? I am going to assume that this either/or statement, as valid as it is, sets an unfair framework in the assumptions it makes. Fairly easy to see in this example, but equally easy to miss in examples where such third options are rather ignored. That is what Sandri is wanting to say. The errantist/inerrantist discussion makes assumptions regarding the proper foundation of reliability and authority that perniciously undermines the very reliability and authority it pretends to promote. You can insist the scripture is either errant or inerrant, but that is missing the very important point Sandri wishes to make.
(Tongue in cheek) I am also going to assume that your choice of the number 7 as a safeguard against spam is not a subconsciously a suppressed claim to divine perfection.
Hey Henry, haven't seen you at my blog recently, but glad to see you here again. Just out of curiosity - your description of Randy's "false antithesis", is it true or false?
Henry, for the sake of clarity, I should have added that a false premise fits in an entirely different category than a "third way".
Last paragraph removed by moderator
Sorry to litter your thread with comments, Randy.
The answer to Henry's question about Randy beating his family is "No, Randy has not quit beating his family". There can only be a yes or no answer to the question, and in this case it's a no. This is because the premise is faulty. And the existence of a faulty premise is *not* an argument against the law of non-contradiction.
Hi,
It is not my intention to argue against the validity of the law of non-contradiction. I only wish to point out that it is not a tool with universal applicability, and that there are times where its application serves no purpose. Outside of appropriate situations its utility may resemble that of using a sledge hammer to fine tune a Rolex, or using a surgeon's scalpel to cut down a 3000 year old Giant Sequoia Redwood.
That is what I take Sandri to be suggesting ("Both are wrong"), and that is the point that is entirely missed by merely insisting that the Bible is either errant or inerrant. It is not a false antithesis per se. It is an antithesis that is absolutely impotent in addressing Sandri's concerns.
Cheers!
Sandri is still guilty of contradiction. It is unavoidable that either the Bible errs, or that it errs not. There's not third way. Inerrancy is an either/or proposition.
If we were discussing the matter "What does Jesus teach about forgiveness?", then the law of non-contradiction is not in play. On the matter of "does the Bible affirm false teaching or does it not?", it is unavoidable that there are only two options.
Welcome back, Henry! I wrote a detailed reply last night and then had some technical difficulties, so I'll try to reconstitute it before I read the new comments.
Either you have quit beating your wife and kids, or you have not. It has to be one or the other, right? I am going to assume that this either/or statement, as valid as it is, sets an unfair framework in the assumptions it makes.
Language game alert! You begin with an assumption that I was beating my wife and kids, and that is either true or it is not. If true, your question is valid and has an either/or answer of its own. If not, the question is invalid. You must reduce propositions down to the simplest either/or form before that logic can be applied. That is not a problem with either/or logic, but with the framing of the question. In this case, you need two questions to build your case.
The errantist/inerrantist discussion makes assumptions regarding the proper foundation of reliability and authority that perniciously undermines the very reliability and authority it pretends to promote.
Perhaps, but one is still correct and the other one is not. Arriving at the truth through faulty means doesn't negate the truth. This is not a matter of epistemology, but of simple fact. Either the Bible has errors, or it does not. There is no third option. Feel free to postulate one and show me to be wrong.
You can insist the scripture is either errant or inerrant, but that is missing the very important point Sandri wishes to make.
Thank you for insisting that I am missing the point. Either I am, or I am not. Either way, you are using either/or logic to make your case.
When Sandri says, "Both are wrong" he sounds rathern modernist himself. Either they both are wrong, or they are not. Either/or logic is unavoidable.
(Tongue in cheek) I am also going to assume that your choice of the number 7 as a safeguard against spam is not a subconsciously a suppressed claim to divine perfection.
Actually it was my hockey number (5) until some perv spammer figured it out so I had to come up with a new one. Seven just means your comment is complete!
Hi,
No argument on 'either Scripture contains error or it does not'. My point is that the significance of the answer hangs on assumptions regarding what constitutes error, and what is meant by Scripture. The inerrancy statement quite explicitly does not apply to any currently accessible version or copy of Scripture. Therefore it is purely a statement of a philosophical position and has no impact whatsoever regarding the reliability of any current version of scripture, unless one buys into the philosophical presuppositions inherent in the statement, which I do not. I do not believe the authority and reliability of Scripture is as easily damaged as the statement suggests.
The pains taken to explain which discrepancies in the biblical record are errors (Oh, none! Fancy that!), and why they are not errors, gives rise to valid suspicions about which came first - the chicken or the egg (it had to be one or the other, right?). Was it an observation that Scripture contains no errors, therefore it was reliable? Or was it a philosophical presupposition that Scripture must not contain errors in order for it to be reliable (based on a specific formulation of theories of truth, knowledge, etc.), therefore it must not contain errors, therefore all discrepancies are explained away as not being errors?
Either/Or statements are not always useless, but neither are they always definitive and conclusive. Their utility rests on assumptions, implied definitions, conceptual structures, specific purposes etc., etc. Either/Or statements are either useless, or they are not useless. Well, that depends.
God bless.
No argument on 'either Scripture contains error or it does not'
If you or Sandri believe the Scripture has errors, you are by definition errantist. If you do not, you are inerrantist. Yes, error and Scripture must be defined, but that seems trivial. An error occurs when something is mistakenly claimed to be other than it really is. I think we're safe in assuming "Scripture" here is the Hebrew Torah (OT) combined with the NT. No need to worry about the Qur'an, Book of Mormon, or Apocrypha.
The inerrancy statement quite explicitly does not apply to any currently accessible version or copy of Scripture.
Let's not read too much into that. We can be confident that the compiled original language testaments are 99% accurate, with any discrepancies being too minor to affect any doctrine (spelling variations and so on). We know what the Torah looked like when Jesus read it; we know what the letters Paul wrote contain. We're not worried about a mysterious Q document. We're quite content to look at the 66 books we have, and treat them as the message of God to man.
Was it an observation that Scripture contains no errors, therefore it was reliable? Or was it a philosophical presupposition that Scripture must not contain errors in order for it to be reliable (based on a specific formulation of theories of truth, knowledge, etc.), therefore it must not contain errors, therefore all discrepancies are explained away as not being errors?
As we've established, either/or questions have to be valid. I would say the answer to yours is that the presuppositions were theological, based on things like prophetic authority beginning with Moses delivering the tablets after a series of amazing miracles. Apostolic authority and attestation was the basis of the NT canon. Inerrancy wasn't an issue early on because it was simply assumed. God doesn't lie. This is God's Word to us, ergo, it is without error.
Hey Randy -
Thanks for posting your thoughts about the article. I'm glad that you got the chance to visit L'Abri back in 2007. I have been there twice myself and I am heading back in August for another period of time.
I have to ask you if you think L'Abri should be engaging with culture (and that means postmodernism) and maybe seeking the truth in postmodernism and embracing that, while rejecting what is not true about it? Seems to me that you think that L'Abri should have remained in modernist thinking, as you have, but I wonder if this wouldn't be a deviation from Schaeffer's original goal of L'Abri embracing culture and changes in culture. Seems to me that if L'Abri was just embracing modernism, and not interacting with postmodernism in healthy ways, it would be off-base.
As a friend of John Sandri's, I can assure you that he is not "postmodern" or an errantist. Let's get out of that "either/or" thinking that is so modern and many times is unhelpful, and embrace unknowns.
And you say "Yes, error and Scripture must be defined, but that seems trivial" but I must vehemently disagree. For the sake of this discussion, definining those two terms is everything, because if we are not arguing using common terms, what good is the argument?
John, thanks for adding your thoughts. I hope you have a great visit to L'Abri. I'd love to return to Switzerland again some day.
I have to ask you if you think L'Abri should be engaging with culture (and that means postmodernism) and maybe seeking the truth in postmodernism and embracing that, while rejecting what is not true about it?
Yes, I most certainly believe L'Abri (and all Christians) should be engaging the culture, pomo or otherwise. Embracing truth is commendable, although somewhat slippery in the pomo culture. On what basis could you embrace a pomo view of truth and still retain the ability to embrace what it true and reject what is not?
Seems to me that you think that L'Abri should have remained in modernist thinking, as you have,
I wouldn't say that L'Abri should have remained in modernist thinking because it's rather simplistic to brand one as modernist simply for believing in knowable truth, as Francis Schaeffer certainly did. Modernism is a subset of those who believe in truth, rather than just an equivalent term.
I wonder if this wouldn't be a deviation from Schaeffer's original goal of L'Abri embracing culture and changes in culture.
Schaeffer never promoted embracing culture if it meant compromising truth. He studied culture and interacted with people of all cultures, but always pointed to the truth of the Bible and the God who is there and is not silent. His goal was Christ in culture, but he certainly also preached Christ over flawed culture.
Seems to me that if L'Abri was just embracing modernism, and not interacting with postmodernism in healthy ways, it would be off-base.
Agreed. How do we define "healthy" as opposed to "acquiescing"?
As a friend of John Sandri's, I can assure you that he is not "postmodern" or an errantist.
That is encouraging. The cited article did not convey that.
Let's get out of that "either/or" thinking that is so modern and many times is unhelpful, and embrace unknowns.
Now that sounds very postmodern. Was L'Abri founded on embracing unknowns? Quite the opposite.
And you say "Yes, error and Scripture must be defined, but that seems trivial" but I must vehemently disagree. For the sake of this discussion, definining those two terms is everything, because if we are not arguing using common terms, what good is the argument?
I meant "trivial" as in "easy to do," not as in "unimportant," as my next sentence made clear:
Yes, error and Scripture must be defined, but that seems trivial. An error occurs when something is mistakenly claimed to be other than it really is. I think we're safe in assuming "Scripture" here is the Hebrew Torah (OT) combined with the NT. No need to worry about the Qur'an, Book of Mormon, or Apocrypha.
That seems obvious enough. We have narrowed Scripture to the Christian Bible (ignoring for now Henry's Ehrman-flavored concerns about the original autographs) and clearly defined an error as a mistake. Therefore, if one asserts that the Bible made mistakes, one is an errantist. If one asserts that the Bible is without error, one is an inerrantist. Either/or logic runs our universe. Either you are going to L'Abri in August, or you are not. In September, we will know beyond any mystery or embrace of the unknown whether the statement "John Doherty visited L'Abri in August" is true or false.
Wow! It never ceases to amaze me how fast institutions can drift from their foundations. Literally within a generation this has happened to so many seminaries, Bible colleges, denominations, and I guess even L'Abri isn't immune from seemingly unavoidable theological drift.