Friday, July 24, 2009

Jim Hamilton on Inerrancy


Dr. Jim Hamilton of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has written a helpful article explaining what he calls "the evangelical view of Scripture." Read it HERE.

5 comments:

Mike said...

Not that I think either of us will convince the other of our point of view on this subject but isn't this simply the self-validation argument again? i.e. "it's true...because it (the bible) says it's true" I am sorry, I just don't find this convincing. In fact, when I hear people take this approach, I am further convinced the other way because if this is (presumably) the best argument for inerrancy what does that say?

I wish someone could convince me otherwise...

Todd Pruitt said...

Mike,
The Bible's self-attestation is not the only thing inerrantists appeal to. If you have read the books and articles by inerrantists then you will know this to be true. However, we also believe appealing to the Bible's self-attestation should be taken seriously because we believe the Bible is God's Word. Obviously if you reject the notion that the Bible is God's Word then what it says about itself is completely irrelevant (so is everything else it says).

Mike said...

but does possible errancy neccessarily equal irrelevency when it comes to spiritual matters? I don't believe that...

Todd Pruitt said...

First of all I'm not sure what "possible errancy" means.

But to your point - I believe inerrancy and relevancy have a great deal to do wtih one another. How can you say, "Factually the Bible is a myth but spiritually it's accurate"? If what the Bible says about itself is not true then how can we trust it when it tells us that there one God, that he is holy, that he is love, that he is just, and that he has a beloved Son named Jesus who died in our place?

case.jess said...

Mike,

When you say "possible errancy" are you meaning to convey that the Scripture is definitively false concerning a certain matter, or simply not as scientifically precise as we'd like it to be?