Saturday, September 01, 2007

Does it dishonor God not to presuppose inerrancy?

I was just listening to the latest episode of Stand to Reason, and it got me to thinking about something. There's a big feud in the world of Christian apologetics between evidentialism and presuppositionalism. The objection most presuppositionalists bring against evidentialism is that it somehow dishonor's God. One example is when evidentialists make historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus without assuming the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Tactically speaking, though, I think evidentialists are right to do this. It's not easy to build an argument for scriptural inerrancy. But it turns out that it's not necessary to assume scriptural inerrancy to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus. A person who argues for scriptural inerrancy in order to demonstrate the resurrection is going to have a much more difficult time than a person who argues for the resurrection on historical grounds.

If you're arguing for the resurrection on historical grounds, and somebody starts bringing up contradictions in the Bible, you can dismiss many of them as irrelevent to your case. You don't have to get bogged down in each issue the other person brings up.

It seems to me that the object of apologetics ought to be to give a defense for the hope that we have. That's what it means to give an apologetic. A sound argument is a sound argument. If arguing for the resurrection on historical grounds without the necessity of proving inerrancy first is easier, then why not? It's not as if you have to argue from inerrancy to make the argument. You just have to say that the historical case is sound even if the Bible is errant. I don't see how that dishonor's God.

4 Comments:

At 9/04/2007 11:56 PM , Blogger de la... said...

I agree with and appreciate your assessment. I grew up a very devout Christian and have had some intense doubts of late. Never have I been quite as disappointed as when I tried to get answers from an individual who claimed to have gone through the same thing at one time.

After a series of emails that got us nowhere, it came to light that he was a presuppositionalist. The discourse ended by him stating that I could choose to trust in human observation or the Bible. He had chosen the latter. Unfortunately, that doesn't get me any closer to why.

 
At 9/06/2007 1:12 PM , Blogger Paul said...

I agree with your point. I've experienced my own resistance to the idea, though, when I attempted to submit this article for publication. The area of concern came about halfway down starting with the paragraph that begins, "Now, while I am not suggesting the need to surrender inerrancy. . ." Without the ability to set aside the question of inerrancy, we lose a whole arsenal of apologetic tactics.

 
At 9/11/2007 5:23 AM , Blogger Lu said...

Hi, My name is Lucia, friends call me Lucy. I happened to run into your blog by searching for something else in google and I sort of peeked at the beginning, but found myself ankled to the different subjects you've written about and found it extremely interesting. So, i'd like to stay in touch if it sounds like an idea to you. I have a blog also, but i haven't used it for a looooong time. I'm planning to start posting again, not counting videos and pictures. More like a journal. i actually use other sites to write more. But i'll try to stay updated here.
Anyways, I wanted to share something with you but it's long for a comment and its not really related with this topic, but i dont know where to write it. Just thoughts of some sort of revelation of love God expressed in my life through a simple movie. Since it's related to your name, i thought you'd like to know about it. I know you'll find it interesting. Let me know if ur interested in getting it.
Stay blessed.

 
At 9/11/2007 8:56 PM , Blogger ephphatha said...

Howdy Lu/Lucia/Lucy. I'm glad you found some of my stuff interesting. Y'all come back now, ya hear?

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home