|
Articles > Systematic
Theology > Doctrine
of Biblical Inerrancy> The Nature of Debating Inerrancy in
Light of the Doctrine of Biblical Authority
Part XIII: The Nature of Debating Inerrancy in Light of the Doctrine
of Biblical Authority
I. The debate between Inerrancy and Errancy is a debate about
Biblical authority vs. unbiblical authorities
a. Everyone has an ultimate standard/authority in which they
rule out something as true of false (error)
i. Examples
1. Christian: Bible
2. Nonbelievers: Subjectivism, Relativism, Culture,
social conventions, laws, etc
ii. The question is, what is this standard? Is it the Bible
or something else?
1. It is the task of Christian apologetics to expose and
refute these false standards.
b. Since the debate is about ultimate authority, the debate
is chiefly 'presuppositional' in nature
i. One's ultimate authority are generally not proven by 'facts',
since one's ultimate authority is the standard that determines
what is or is not a fact
1. In its core, there is clash of philosophies of facts
with those who believe in the authority of the Bible and those
that do not.
c. Therefore, a rational defense of Inerrancy will have to
come by way of 'reasoning by presupposition'
i. It is not the marshalling of outside physical 'facts'
per se.
1. Recall that any such 'facts' are established by one's
ultimate authority to begin with.
ii. This calls for an analysis of an opponent's basis for
their ultimate authority
1. For example, is it based upon subjectivism, popular opinion,
etc?
a. The Christian engaging in apologetics would at this
point refute the arbitrary basis for these authorities.
iii. This calls for an analysis of whether an opponent's
ultimate authority is coherent
1. In other words, are the statements of the opponent's
ultimate authority logically compatible (as opposed to logically
conflicting) with one another?
iv. This calls for an analysis of whether an opponent's ultimate
authority is consistent with other beliefs that the opponent
might assent towards
1. Does the opponent's ultimate authority undermine the
meaningfulness or intelligibility of other beliefs the opponent
has?
II. The Christian must not reject Biblical inerrancy while defending
Biblical inerrancy
a. It is irrational to do so.
i. It is rational in light of the doctrine of Biblical authority,
the written and clear teaching of the Bible on this topic and
the internal testimony of the Bible's factual accuracy, to believe
in the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
ii. Just because someone questions this doctrine does not
grant them the right for you to negate your view temporarily.
1. They do not abandon their presuppositions when they argue
for their point of view, why should you?
b. It is immoral against God to do so.
i. If you believe this is God's truth, will you deny His truth
as revealed in Scripture?
c. Recall one's ultimate commitment is the Scripture
i. "If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of
God came-and the Scripture cannot be broken…" (John
10:35)
1. Context was Jesus confronting the unbelief of the Jews
2. Notice that Jesus mentioned that the Scripture can not
be broken
a. Christians know the answer a head of time, deducing
from the Word of God the answer that the Bible is without
error!
i. The Biblical errantists can offer at best an inductive
case of the possibility of errors in the Bible
d. Therefore, if the situation arises where you have to defend
Biblical inerrancy by way of using Scripture itself, do not be
afraid to do so!
i. The next outline will be an illustration of how this can
be done.
|
