Opening the Can-er of Worms

cubanito · Mar 1, 2015

I am here at the suggestion of the Great Mr Resha Caner. If any of my posts are deemed offensive or argumentative, I will remove them and ask your pardon. I may be an ogre, but I am no troll.

I have only interest in the opinion of those that adhere to full Biblical inerrancy, such as for example, as expressed in the cross-denominational Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy. If you do not consider the Bible the exhaled infallible Word of God, please ignore this thread. If you do not trust the Bible in all matters to which is speaks, then you do not stand with the historical Luther; and so why should I listen to your opinion on Lutheranism.

I do not understand Lutheran theology. I am particularly interested in the hermeneutics. While I am a Presbyterian, I do not accept Covenant theology. My position is closest to New Covenant Theology, though I do accept infant baptism.

Can you point me to something a layman who is not interested in spending too many hours on this could read? Or write something about what method the Bible believing Lutherans use in Biblical interpretation?

I may have questions. It is easy to slip into debate without meaning to. If at some point I inadvertently violate forum rules please alert me and I will stop.

JR

filosofer · Mar 2, 2015

Go to iTunes for Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. Search for Dr. James Voelz, "Principles of Biblical Interpretation." He has a five part audio for Principles of Biblical Interpretation. He taught this for lay people at a Lutheran Church in St. Louis area. Excellent material.

Resha Caner · Mar 3, 2015

cubanito said:
I am here at the suggestion of the Great Mr Resha Caner. If any of my posts are deemed offensive or argumentative, I will remove them and ask your pardon. I may be an ogre, but I am no troll.

I'm glad you're here asking questions, but just calling me Caner is fine.

cubanito said:
I have only interest in the opinion of those that adhere to full Biblical inerrancy, such as for example, as expressed in the cross-denominational Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy. If you do not consider the Bible the exhaled infallible Word of God, please ignore this thread. If you do not trust the Bible in all matters, then you do not stand with the historical Luther; and so why should I listen to your opinion on Lutheranism.

I'm sure filosofer's link is a good one, so I won't create confusion with another. I'm not sure I would have a good one at hand anyway. Rather, once you're done perusing, I'll start you off with 2 questions:

1) What do you mean by trusting Scripture in "all matters"? I wouldn't think you use the Bible to choose your breakfast.

2) What do you have to say about things like the JW Bible (New World Translation), Joseph Smith's translation, Thomas Jefferson's, Mark Twain's?

cubanito · Mar 3, 2015

1- I have ammended my post at the Caner's suggestion.

2- The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy summarizes my views very well, if you wish details.
a- I believe only the original documents were inerrant.
b- I believe the contents of those documents are recoverable today with an precision of between 95 to 99% and with 100% accuracy on all that is necessary for salvation.
c- I do not believe any translation is perfect, not even my poor attempts at such using tools like eSword and Strong numbers. For example, Christ never said "do not judge" as every translation does in Mathew 7. In Greek there are 2 kinds of no. An absolute no, and a qualified no. The word here is the qualified no, which in context should be translated "judge very little" or "judge carefully and in fear" As to translations made by groups or single people with a specific agenda, they are no better than the NIV, a loathsome travesty (OK, maybe a little hyperbole, but I am quite against "dynamic equivalence" for a study Bible). If you want my personal favorite, it's the NASB, but again, all translations have problems.
3- I am going to take some time to get the filosofer link, and won't be asking any questions until I can get through that.

JR

Arcangl86 · Mar 3, 2015

There is one thing I would like to point out. While there is evident that Luther did believe in biblical inerrency, he also doubted the canoncity of several books of the NT. So you really can't believe that the whole modern canon was the breathed words of God, and have the same understanding Luther did.

Edial · Mar 4, 2015

cubanito said:
1- I have ammended my post at the Caner's suggestion.

2- The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy summarizes my views very well, if you wish details.
a- I believe only the original documents were inerrant.
b- I believe the contents of those documents are recoverable today with an precision of between 95 to 99% and with 100% accuracy on all that is necessary for salvation.
c- I do not believe any translation is perfect, not even my poor attempts at such using tools like eSword and Strong numbers. For example, Christ never said "do not judge" as every translation does in Mathew 7. In Greek there are 2 kinds of no. An absolute no, and a qualified no. The word here is the qualified no, which in context should be translated "judge very little" or "judge carefully and in fear" As to translations made by groups or single people with a specific agenda, they are no better than the NIV, a loathsome travesty (OK, maybe a little hyperbole, but I am quite against "dynamic equivalence" for a study Bible). If you want my personal favorite, it's the NASB, but again, all translations have problems.
3- I am going to take some time to get the filosofer link, and won't be asking any questions until I can get through that.

JR

Agree with everything ... even the numbers. ^_^

cubanito · Mar 4, 2015

Arcangl86 said:
There is one thing I would like to point out. While there is evident that Luther did believe in biblical inerrency, he also doubted the canoncity of several books of the NT. So you really can't believe that the whole modern canon was the breathed words of God, and have the same understanding Luther did.

Doubted their canonicity yes, and certainly thought they were inferior in doctrinal value. However, Luther did include them, though placing them at the end. More than that is a matter for you Lutherans to debate but, pun intended, not Germane to my OP. As you stated, Luther was fairly clear regarding Biblical inerrancy overall.

JR

filosofer · Mar 5, 2015

The referent makes a significant difference in this discussion regarding inerrancy.

Keep in mind that what Luther and the Reformers meant by inerrancy (their phrase “Scripture cannot err&#8221

is different from the common use of “inerrancy” today. That change happened in general in 1880 by B. B. Warfield through Princeton, and came into the LCMS in 1920 through Arndt.

Warfield was trying to combat higher criticism and used lower criticism (textual criticism) as a counter. He then had to deal with manuscript differences. The only solution he offered was to claim that “the original manuscripts [apographa] were inerrant.” Of course, the problem: there were no “original manuscripts.” So the referent for inerrancy was the original manuscripts. [Note: the referent for apographa has also changed over the years since the Reformation.]

For the reformers, the referent was the existent Greek received text in front of the person (even as for Athanasius and others in the battle against Arians). Manuscript differences did not matter, even different words, or spellings. It was the content that was the referent, and in that the Scriptures could not err (hence inerrant).

I prefer to use the Reformation term, “cannot err” rather than “inerrancy.”

Resha Caner · Mar 5, 2015

Yes, then there is the Barthian spin on inerrancy.

I guess my preference goes toward Psalm 119:89 and Isaiah 55:10-11.

cubanito · Mar 10, 2015

went to website, all I see from James Voelz, is elementary greek, not "Principles of Biblical Interpretation shows up for me

filosofer · Mar 12, 2015

You will find it in iTunes. Search there and you can download into iTunes

cubanito · Mar 12, 2015

tried to find in itunes 4 times in different ways, search results would only yield elementary Greek by him, and title yoelded nothing. I am not apple savy, sorry.

JR

filosofer · Mar 13, 2015

It’s not a Apple thing.

Also, it appears as if they have taken down the five week section on “Principles of Interpretation.” Not sure when that was done, but it was still there last spring.That is disappointing to say the least.

You can listen to the entire Seminary course on Biblical Hermeneutics in iTunes. It is more technical, but you should be able to follow it.

When you go to csl. Click on Resources at the bottom. Click on the iTunes button. It will bring up a window in iTunes itself. All CSL programs will be listed. On the right column select “Language.” The “Biblical Hermeneutics” should be in the second row (depending on your screen size).

I will see if I have some notes I can post when I teach Hermeneutics for the seminary (which I will begin this coming Monday night).

Opening the Can-er of Worms

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Attachments

Similar threads