tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post115806586717973798..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Of straw men and slippery slopes (part two of two)Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158339709599437202006-09-15T10:01:00.000-07:002006-09-15T10:01:00.000-07:00Okay, I think I get it. It is just little things. ...Okay, I think I get it. It is just little things. It is still Gods word and nothing will change that right? Like I said before, the more I read the more I want and the better I can understand it. I relize now how so many people get their relationship with God. Just read the bible faithfully and it just speaks to your soul. I really enjoy your blogs. Thanks for clarifying that for me.striving...https://www.blogger.com/profile/02396480726008048950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158319342552229522006-09-15T04:22:00.000-07:002006-09-15T04:22:00.000-07:00Okay, Striving, I think I get you now. Thanks. An...Okay, <B>Striving</B>, I think I get you now. Thanks. And I always encourage folks to talk to their faithful pastors, so that's a great idea.<BR/><BR/>To take just the Greek NT, we have over 5000 copies (in whole and in part) going back as far as the 100's. That's good news. But no two copies agree exactly in every letter, as I understand. That's as bad as the bad news gets, because by far most of the differences are of a letter or two here or there, or otherwise inconsequential. Some have, some lack a "the"; some have "you," some "us" (difference of one letter in Greek), stuff like that.<BR/><BR/>But no major doctrine -- the Godhood of Christ, the Gospel, etc. -- is affected by these variations.<BR/><BR/>So it's the job of textual scholars to reconstruct the original text from all these copies, and from early translations, and from quotations in the early Christian writers (of which there are many).<BR/><BR/>One of the best summaries of all this is in Reinventing Jesus, which I reviewed <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/08/book-review-reinventing-jesus-by-three.html" REL="nofollow"> here</A>.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158295939559851822006-09-14T21:52:00.000-07:002006-09-14T21:52:00.000-07:00Sorry I always get *key* tied. I guess what I mean...Sorry I always get *key* tied. I guess what I mean is that I always hear people say "How do you know that the man copying the bible did not change the words to make them his own." Are you saying that that is a possibility, that Gods word has been changed? Or is that not at all possible? Gods word is Gods word and he would not let ANY joe schmoe change it right? Does it make since now? If not it is okay. I can talk to my *pastor* more about it also.striving...https://www.blogger.com/profile/02396480726008048950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158260393785837322006-09-14T11:59:00.000-07:002006-09-14T11:59:00.000-07:00Kent -- excerpted that way, the statement confuse...<B>Kent </B> -- excerpted that way, the statement confused me... and I wrote it!<BR/><BR/>If you read the whole paragraph together with looking up the references, I think it may be clearer that the point I am making is that the Son's words are the Father's words, and the apostles' words are the Son's words; therefore the words of the NT (written by apostles and apostolic men) are the words of God.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for asking; hope that helps.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158245177067860602006-09-14T07:46:00.000-07:002006-09-14T07:46:00.000-07:00Hi Taliesin,I didn't mean to assume that Dan's sta...Hi Taliesin,<BR/><BR/>I didn't mean to assume that Dan's statement is a full tilt defense of inerrantism; I see that it's not. And I have no wish to dispute your point that the author of Matthew was present in the upper room; we can add the author of 1 & 2 Peter too, if we want. So thanks for pointing out my mistakes.<BR/><BR/>I guess I just don't see how it makes much difference. It's all well-and-good to say that we don't need anything other than Scripture; but when it comes down to actually interpreting Scripture, we're going to need the help of some hermeneutic principles. And I can't tell how to extract those principles straight-up from Scripture; there's just not enough to go on. Sure, our hermeneutic principles can and should be plausible on Scripture; they should be supported by Scripture in some way. But they're might still be room for honest and thoughtful Christians to disagree.<BR/><BR/>The Bible under-determines a lot of things. It doesn't tell us how to make logical sense of the Trinity or the Incarnation, for instance. Paul doesn't come right out and tell us whether the wearing of head coverings and the prohibition of long hair on men is a cultural, or normative, practice. This leaves room for disagreement. To my eyes, Scripture also doesn't come right out and unambiguously state how to read it. When we settle on a hermeneutic, there's inferences and presuppositions at work that can't be extracted from the text itself. Or maybe they can; I'm open to correction. But if they can't, does this make them extra-biblical? Peace,<BR/><BR/>lukeLuke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158233457848779292006-09-14T04:30:00.000-07:002006-09-14T04:30:00.000-07:00Luke,A couple of points: (1) Your analysis assumes...Luke,<BR/><BR/>A couple of points: (1) Your analysis assumes that Dan's doctrinal statement is the same as a defense of inerrancy. I would argue that a doctrinal statement is primarily a summation of beliefs with limited Scripture backing. Full development of many of the doctrines in a doctrinal statement would require more extensive documentation.<BR/><BR/>(2) As a brief beginning, you mentioned John in the upper room, but Matthew would have been there as well. Matthew records Jesus saying not the slightest mark would pass away from the Scripture (OT). This, and other passages as well, factor into building a case for inerrancy.Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158217818932856242006-09-14T00:10:00.000-07:002006-09-14T00:10:00.000-07:00Dan,What did you mean by this in the doctrinal sta...Dan,<BR/><BR/>What did you mean by this in the doctrinal statement you wrote?<BR/><BR/>"the twenty-seven books known as the Greek New Testament are the eternally abiding words of Jesus Christ"<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158204207878213462006-09-13T20:23:00.000-07:002006-09-13T20:23:00.000-07:00I'm open to sola scriptura and inerrancy; I'd like...I'm open to sola scriptura and inerrancy; I'd like to believe them; alas, I have real difficulty actually doing so. I have honest questions. Here they are.<BR/><BR/>Unsurprisingly, DJP's argument for Sola Scriptura rests on Scripture. Suppose we confine our glance to the passages he cites in the NT as proof positive of the doctrine; I personally don't think they offer much by way of unambiguous support for the conclusion. I could be wrong; let's have a look. <BR/><BR/>"Similarly, the twenty-seven books known as the Greek New Testament are the eternally abiding words of Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:35)"<BR/><BR/>Sure, Jesus' words won't pass away; granted. Which words? Probably the words he's just been speaking, the ones that probably have to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Or maybe *all* of the words Jesus ever spoke. Okay; so all the words Jesus ever spoke won't pass away. Good. <BR/><BR/>"and [these words] are thus the words of God (John 7:16; 12:49)."<BR/><BR/>Agreed; Jesus' words are God's word; Jesus speaks for God.<BR/> <BR/>"The Holy Spirit enabled the writers both to recall what the Lord said (John 14:26), and to continue to receive His revelation (John 16:12-15)."<BR/><BR/>In context, Jn. 14:26 is addressed to the disciples in the upper room, those Jesus is reclining with at Passover immediately prior to the crucifixion. So, taken in context, 14:26 states that the Holy Spirit will enable the disciples present in the upper room to remember all that Jesus has said. As for Jn 16:12-15, again, in context, these words are addressed to the disciples in the upper room; the Holy Spirit will speak through these men when the time is right. <BR/><BR/>"As a result, the writings of the New Testament are the commandment of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37), are Scripture (2 Peter 3:15, 16), and are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)."<BR/><BR/>Whoa. That first clause seems like a non-sequitur. All we've got so far is that the Holy Spirit will enable the disciples to whom Jesus is speaking in Jn. 14:26 and 16:12-15 to recall all his words, and that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth when he comes. Conjoin this with 1 Cor. 37, which in context is a claim that Paul is making on his own behalf to the Corinthians, and we can *maybe* get unambiguous support for the conclusion that what Paul wrote to the Corinthians was in some sense inerrant, and that John's gospel is inerrant, assuming that the John who wrote it was present in the upper room. Since presumably and plausibly neither Mark nor Matthew nor Luke nor Paul nor any other of the NT authors were present in the upper room, it's difficult to see (without further argument) why we should extend Jesus' words to them. I'm not saying we shouldn't; just that the text in itself, taken in context, doesn't license it.<BR/><BR/>Granted that 2 Peter 3:15-16 implies that Paul's letters are Scripture; what should we conclude? We're trying to figure out what properties Scripture has; to assume that the fact that Paul's writings constitute Scripture entails that those writing are inerrant begs the question. We can also happily grant 2 Tim 3:16 and still legitimately ask what it means for something to be God breathed; does it mean that it's inerrant in the modern evangelical sense; or maybe just highly reliable; or what? We can also wonder just which documents the author of 2 Timothy took to be Scripture. Maybe he saw himself and his contemporaries composing Scripture in the same sense of the OT; maybe.<BR/><BR/>Again, these are honest questions. I just can't help but think that the actual statements Scripture makes about Scripture aren't by themselves enough to get us a robust doctrine of inerrancy or sola scriptura. This doesn't mean these doctrines can't be maintained; it just means they can't be adequately defended *solely* on biblical grounds. Given that some pretty harsh words follow for those who have trouble w/ Sola Scriptura, one would hope for a bit tighter argument to shore DJP’s punchline. Thanks for the forum, and peace.<BR/><BR/>lukeLuke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158165483913916522006-09-13T09:38:00.000-07:002006-09-13T09:38:00.000-07:00"...if anyone puts the Word down, he is denying th...<I>"...if anyone puts the Word down, he is denying the Word's self-testimony..."</I><BR/><BR/>Good stuff. Also, that Zombie quote was internet gold.REMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285866237413113428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158147524346494242006-09-13T04:38:00.000-07:002006-09-13T04:38:00.000-07:00Well said, Dan.That Sola Scriptura caricature stra...Well said, Dan.<BR/><BR/>That Sola Scriptura caricature straw man is a great point. A bit of a twist on the one you decribed and you have the RCs favorite target. Throw in the 35,000 denominations of straw men and you almost have all the bases covered.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158146665575129162006-09-13T04:24:00.000-07:002006-09-13T04:24:00.000-07:00Striving -- I'd be happy to explain, but I'm sorry...<B>Striving</B> -- I'd be happy to explain, but I'm sorry, I don't really understand your question. Could you reword it? Thanks.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158125301307781942006-09-12T22:28:00.000-07:002006-09-12T22:28:00.000-07:00Hey, just re-read the first post and must be a lil...Hey, just re-read the first post and must be a lil' slow on the uptake. totally missed the point on that. Sorry:( The whole interpretation thing always throws me anyway. Are you saying that the jift is there in the bible, or that it is Gods word to be studied and believed that it is Gods word. If it is the first, then that gives people the right to say that it could be mans word not Gods. Please explain, Lamans terms, maybe, Striving to be better really fits here.striving...https://www.blogger.com/profile/02396480726008048950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158123738963090162006-09-12T22:02:00.000-07:002006-09-12T22:02:00.000-07:00Just a quick thought. Dont most "charismatics" foc...Just a quick thought. Dont most "charismatics" focus on the end times. And most I have met and talked to seem to misinterpret a lot. It is like the old question that so many unbelievers ask, "How do you know the bible wasn't changed over all the years and translations?" And don't we always say "Because it is Gods word." The more I read of my bible, the more I want, and I believe that that is God working in me to learn what I need, and the stronger it makes me to defend what I believe, I guess you could say it arms me for battles. :)striving...https://www.blogger.com/profile/02396480726008048950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158088441381355822006-09-12T12:14:00.000-07:002006-09-12T12:14:00.000-07:00Merci.Er, that is, um....<I>Merci.</I><BR/><BR/>Er, that is, um....DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158087981505146352006-09-12T12:06:00.000-07:002006-09-12T12:06:00.000-07:00huh, I posted and it seems to have lost it. So, ju...huh, I posted and it seems to have lost it. <BR/><BR/>So, just wanted to say thanks Dan, for such a helpfully two-angled post - you know, coming at our tendancies to <I>both</I> extremes and not just one, so we can't just go out contentedly patting ourselves on the back. Always good.étrangèrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02802871565840479439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158082156671910832006-09-12T10:29:00.000-07:002006-09-12T10:29:00.000-07:00Well spoken thoughts. "So then faith comes by hear...Well spoken thoughts. <BR/><BR/>"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ."donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158076817666507612006-09-12T09:00:00.000-07:002006-09-12T09:00:00.000-07:00Ahah!I knew it would come out...Phillips is a Cath...Ahah!<BR/><BR/>I knew it would come out...<BR/><BR/>Phillips is a Catholic JW infultrating evangelicalism...<BR/><BR/>Look out! Beware! Protect your children!<BR/><BR/>P.S. Great post...lots to ponder there...Yankeerevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04011567664742603211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158076499426596982006-09-12T08:54:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:54:00.000-07:00Zombielike disbelief is never remedied by wacky mi...<I>Zombielike disbelief is never remedied by wacky misbelief.</I><BR/><BR/>Classic...Even So...https://www.blogger.com/profile/14208866122431178938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158076304083984972006-09-12T08:51:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:51:00.000-07:00ReyWhat does #1 have to do with anything I said?Wh...<B>Rey</B><BR/><BR/>What does #1 have to do with anything I said?<BR/><BR/>What does #2 mean?<BR/><BR/>Don't know what more to say about #3. Sorry you see it that way.<BR/><BR/>If by #4 you are honestly saying that you have never encountered this except in comments sections to my posts... I can't think of what to say that wouldn't sound sarcastic. I can't help thinking that you don't get around very much, if that's the case.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158076054400256472006-09-12T08:47:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:47:00.000-07:00JSB -- doggone it, I should have used the word "bi...<B>JSB</B> -- doggone it, I should have used the word "bibliolatry." Thanks for making up for my lack.<BR/><BR/>You know, I have reservations about Piper, and though I've read the book a couple of times, I'll never like the phrase "Christian hedonism." Future Grace did me a lot more good persoally -- and I think "future grace" isn't the best phrase, either. But he gets these things into his head, and nothing will persuade him otherwise.<BR/><BR/>All that having been said, unless I misunderstand him, Piper's saying <I>basically</I> what I'm saying (and vice-versa): to with, that the God who we know personally and specifically through Scripture alone is a glorious and marvelous God, and if we believe what He says about Himself in Scripture, we will taste and see that he is good.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158075536990749062006-09-12T08:38:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:38:00.000-07:00Great Post. I love the character names, from now o...Great Post. I love the character names, from now on I will refer to people I do not agree with as such. ;-)Christopher Barnettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10002089408552516872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158074849483108452006-09-12T08:27:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:27:00.000-07:00Dan, I've always found the charge of "bibliolatry"...Dan, I've always found the charge of "bibliolatry" to be an uninformed slur. I mean, no card carrying inerrantist "worships" the Bible, making it an idol. It is because it is God's revelation that we abide by it.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to ask where you think John Piper's "Christian hedonism" fits in here. I read Desiring God many years ago and loved it.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158074136695911692006-09-12T08:15:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:15:00.000-07:00May our Lord and His eternal Word always be glorif...May our Lord and His eternal Word always be glorified!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158074037308611082006-09-12T08:13:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:13:00.000-07:00Honestly, Schreef, it looks like you only read par...Honestly, Schreef, it looks like you only read part of the post.<BR/><BR/>And the rest is simply incorrect -- or I can make no sense of it. How is it a straw man? Because nobody says it? Palpably untrue. Because you don't say it? Did I ever say that you, Schreef, did?<BR/><BR/>Do over, please, and show your work.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158073690349264882006-09-12T08:08:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:08:00.000-07:00"Affirming the genuine, real sufficiency of Script..."Affirming the genuine, real sufficiency of Scripture -- with no need for extra supplements -- is depicted as necessarily producing a cold, intellectual, barren, formal, dead life."<BR/><BR/>Not by me - straw man, as far as I'm concerned.<BR/><BR/>I am told - also by reformed Christians - that I need to live in relationship with Christ. I am to love Him.<BR/>I don't think I can live in relationship with and "love" a book.<BR/>Christ is a person.<BR/>How do these two fit together?<BR/><BR/>And could it not be that some of those you refer to as ignorant, lazy or unbelieving zombies are trying to figure out how to rhyme the intellectualism we grew up with - which did focus on the book above everything - with having a living, daily, passionate relationship with the person Jesus Christ?<BR/><BR/>I admit to being one of the zombies trying to figure that out.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925468051256880789noreply@blogger.com