How do people who deny Biblical inerrancy understand this argument on inspiration?
score:2
This is a challenging matter to argue deductively, especially given that a) the critical passage from 2 Timothy doesn't define key terms like "God-breathed" & "scripture", and b) the passage that supports premise 1 is part of the body of text that is being defended by this argument.
I do not agree with all of the objections I will suggest below, but I will attempt to offer a survey of the types of objections I am aware of.
Premise 1:
- There are people who believe in inspiration & inerrancy, there are people who believe in inspiration but not inerrancy, and there are people who believe in neither. The latter group would object to anything that follows from premise 1
- The human factor remains--if this were an argument that God personally penned the Biblical manuscripts we could probably construct it in a manner that was as logically air-tight as a geometric proof...but the medium of human authors leaves some grey area. Did God give them the exact words, did He give them the ideas to convey in their own words, did He consider their good-but-imperfect consecrated efforts adequate for His purposes despite their human limitations, etc.?
- The argument will be more persuasive to those who already believe the text is inspired, but it will not be persuasive to those who are investigating the matter and remain unsure, because we are using the Bible to argue for the credibility of the Bible. Those without separate grounds for trusting the Bible would perceive this as circularity
- There is no delimiter here...what is covered under the umbrella of "scripture"? Paul almost certainly had in mind the Tanakh/Septuagint when he wrote this to Timothy. What set of books counts? People who believe in a 39/46/66/73/74+ book canon could all use this argument and still come to strikingly divergent conclusions regarding what writings are inspired
--
Premise 2
If the target audience is people who already believe in an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God, this premise is probably pretty secure.
Those who don't already hold this belief would put no stock in premise 2, and would argue that the Bible is the source for believing premise 2 in the first place, leading again to circularity.
--
Premise 3
Is communicating some but not all of what one knows truthful? One could argue that God only speaks truth, but deliberately withholds information that would be unhelpful, overwhelming, or unproductive, even if the result is that readers' understanding is (for the moment) incomplete.
--
Point 4/Conclusion 1
Everything but the last 7 words follows deductively from the first 3 premises. The last 7 words offer a definition that would be split out into a separate premise in a formal proof.
--
Point 5/Conclusion 2
This point is offering a definition of terms, the logical deduction was complete with point 4. It leaves open (perhaps intentionally if it's outside the intended scope of this argument) whether "errors" contemplates matters of doctrine, matters of science, matters of history, matters of grammar, etc. In what sense are they not in error?
One might also object to the present-tense verbs--is the argument focused on inerrancy of the autographs or inerrancy of a present-day text?
--
Conclusion
I would classify this argument as abductive rather than deductive--it makes a point that many will find persuasive, even if it is not logically air-tight. As noted by jaredad, using a Biblical passage to argue for Biblical inerrancy probably won't give us a deductive argument.
My own observation is that most of us who believe the Bible do so on the basis of the personal witness of the Holy Spirit, often with supporting arguments derived from history, linguistics, archeology, and so forth. I shared my thoughts on a variety of these argument in this post. That may not get us all the way to a theology of inerrancy, but it certainly appears to have given millions (if not billions) compelling reason to trust the Bible as a reliable source.
It is my personal belief that God is able to get His work done through imperfect people and their imperfect efforts.
Upvote:3
This is not a valid deductive argument. 4 does not follow from 1, 2, and 3. Even the proposed edit to 4 that removes the phrase "and are inerrant" would not make it valid.
4 does not follow from 1, 2, and 3 because it is only stated in 3 that lying entails falsehood, whereas other acts may also entail falsehood, and nothing is said of these in relation to God. For instance, if God could Himself be deceived, He could then put falsehoods into Scripture without lying. Hence, 4 does not follow.
To amend this, 2 ought to be adjusted to say "God can neither intentionally deceive (that is, lie) nor can He Himself be deceived (that is, He cannot be mistaken about a matter of fact)." Then, 3 ought to be adjusted to say "Falsehoods can only be propagated by those who either are deceived, or lie, or both." From this, it follows that no Word of God can be false.
This edit still does not cause 4 to follow from the premises unless we precisely define what "breathed by God" means. Does it mean that God spoke and the authors of Scripture wrote what they heard? Does it mean that the Holy Spirit guided the authorship of Scripture, but that the authors were ultimately in control of their own wills? If the latter, it is evident that 4 does not follow from the premises, since the authors of scripture both can lie and can themselves be deceived.
Assuming that we take the former position, and say that God literally spoke every word of Scripture Himself, then this is a valid argument. Opponents of biblical inerrancy might then level attacks against the very weak premise that God literally spoke every word of Scripture, undermining its soundness.
This is also not to say that proponents of biblical inerrancy need to believe that God literally spoke every word of Scripture. I personally believe, and my church teaches, that the Holy Spirit inspired the authorship of Scripture while permitting the authors to retain controls of their own wills, and yet that the words of Scripture are factually inerrant. However, this takes faith in those authors, and in the wisdom of God, to not permit the Scriptures to be corrupted by wicked men. A reasonably sound deductive argument probably does not exist to support biblical inerrancy.
More post
- 📝 Intelligent design - Creationism by a different name?
- 📝 Must Catholics believe in Christ's historicity?
- 📝 Why are psalms in the bible printed with funny spacing?
- 📝 Refuting British Israelism
- 📝 What is the "paradise" that Jesus references in Luke 23:43?
- 📝 Phileo/Storge love in God and heaven?
- 📝 Are Mormons Protestants?
- 📝 Is the Hypostatic Union a contradiction?
- 📝 Can families do their own communion service with the sacrament being valid as a means of grace?
- 📝 Are we unaware of something that God foresaw in appointing Paul as apostle?
- 📝 How is the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (promoted through CHARIS) connected with the Sacrament of Baptism?
- 📝 The Protestant perspective concerning the Four Hors*m*n
- 📝 Does "no part of this world" mean no involvement in politics?
- 📝 Which Protestant theologian first clearly formulated the penal substitution theory of atonement?
- 📝 Strange take on the Parable of the 10 talents - Kids book
- 📝 Are there any conditions at all that allow a married Catholic couple to use contraceptives?
- 📝 Does Christianity recommend learning other languages or dealing with non-christians?
- 📝 How do priests judge who they can distribute Communion to?
- 📝 What is the biblical basis for saying that Matthew 22:30 refers to all marriages ceasing at death?
- 📝 Do any Church Fathers directly connect "speaking in tongues" with anything other than existing human languages?
- 📝 How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching?
- 📝 How can the existence of other species of the genus Homo be reconciled with Christian belief in the uniqueness of humankind? (Catholic perspective)
- 📝 Do any Lutheran denominations (or parachurch reform groups) successfully represent "repristination theology"?
- 📝 What does the Bible say about "bad" words?
- 📝 Where are the LDS revelations published?
- 📝 Do any Christianity denominations really offer something for addiction problems specifically?
- 📝 A priest I requested kindly to bless salt and oil did not use the prescribed prayer but used his own, is the blessing valid?
- 📝 How does Luke 11:5-13 fit as corollaries to the Lord's teachings on prayer [Luke 11:1-4]?
- 📝 Will we be able to eat anything in Heaven?
- 📝 Explanation of the bell, book, and candle ritual of excommunication
Source: stackoverflow.com
Search Posts
Related post
- 📝 How do people who deny Biblical inerrancy understand this argument on inspiration?
- 📝 How do Biblical Unitarians, who deny the Son's pre-existence, understand Hebrews 1:2's "through whom He made the universe"?
- 📝 How do Biblical Unitarians who accept Jesus’ sinlessness understand this argument?
- 📝 How do those who deny baptism as a means of grace reconcile this bible verses apparently saing otherwise?
- 📝 How do people who believe in the act of confession understand 1 John 1:9?
- 📝 Who are these people in this Catholic Reformation meme that are considered more influential than Martin Luther?
- 📝 How do Protestants who say Catholicism doesn't teach the true Gospel understand a Catholic person’s faith in Jesus?
- 📝 The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus Christ existed eternally or everlastingly, how do they reconcile this with Micah 5:2?
- 📝 How do those who deny Jesus' pre-existence explain the large number of verses suggesting it?
- 📝 How do people who reject transubstantiation interpret these verses?
- 📝 What is the biblical basis that people who are attracted to the same sex were not created by God that way?
- 📝 How do Biblical Unitarians understand what some theologians refer as the Kenosis in Philippians 2?
- 📝 How do you explain the Christian Message to people who have no Christian vocabulary or context?
- 📝 How do people who believe in immediate heaven for believers at death explain Tabitha?
- 📝 How do Biblical Unitarians understand the connection between Mark 1:1-4 and Malachi 3:1-5?
- 📝 According to Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians and all who deny that Jesus is the Almighty God, how can He be in you and live in you?
- 📝 How do Christians who believe in libertarian free will explain the large imbalance in the ratio of people saved vs. condemned?
- 📝 How do Biblical Unitarians understand "the glory of the Father's own self" that Jesus claims he had before the world was?
- 📝 Who developed the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy first - Catholics or Protestants?
- 📝 Are there any saints or mystics who had a vision of hell, and based on that made a judgment about how many people are in hell? (Catholic perspective)
- 📝 How do Protestant Christians understand the “Sabbath-rest for the people of God” in Hebrews chapter 4?
- 📝 How do those who believe in a dual system (Old & New Covenant simultaneously operative) pre-70 AD understand "one Lord, one faith, one baptism"?
- 📝 For those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ how do you explain Isaiah seeing Christ/Messiah with his physical eyes at Isaiah 6:1?
- 📝 How do those who hold Jesus = God in the Trinitarian sense account for Paul's reticence to state this clearly and consistently?
- 📝 How does scholars' denial of the possibility of NT autographs affect the Christian doctrines of biblical inerrancy and infallibility?
- 📝 How does the Trinitarian defend this argument from a JW?
- 📝 How are people who were not approved by Jesus (Matthew 7:21-23) still able to expel demons?
- 📝 How do those who reject the deity of Christ understand the 'sameness of honor' in John 5?
- 📝 How do those who believe that Jesus is a created being understand the verses which say everything that was created was created by him?
- 📝 Jesus says, that God the Father is a Spirit AND Paul says there is one (1) Spirit. How do trinitarians understand who or what the Holy Spirit is?