Systematic Theology

[Machiavelli]

Hey all,

Just looking into the concepts of revelation, inspiration and inerrancy.

Just wondering if anyone could explain to me how they are able to arrive at the position that Bible is the revelation of God (and that it is it inerrant). Is it possible to arrive at this position through logical process without making any assumptions, or is such an affirmation an article of faith? I've tried to read various primers on systematic theology and all of them seem like they are making assumptions that they should be trying to prove first.

 

[mlqurgw]

If you are looking for empirical proof I am afraid you wil not find much if any. Here are some of the resons I believe the Bible is the Word of God and inerrent:

1. If God is to communicate to us He must do so in a way that we can understand.

2.The Bible in it's entirety was written over a long period of time, I forget exactly how long at the moment, by several different men yet contains one message and it is consistent throughout.

3. Most things written by men tend to put man in the best light possible but the Bible clearly shows man to be the depraved sinner he is. The very best of those written about have their flaws clearly seen.

4. If God gave us the Bible as His word and it is truth He is able, and I believe He has, to preserve it in such a way that it can be trusted.

5.There is really no gray area concerning it. It is either the Word of God or it isn't. If it is then it must be believed and bowed to. If it isn't then we can really trust nothing concerning God.

6.There are some things written in the Bible that make it plain that it is the very Word of God and is to be believed. The one that settles it for me is what Peter wrote concerning the fact it is more sure than even what they saw with their eyes while on the mount of transfiguration. 2Pet. 1:17-21

 

[heymikey80]

Is it possible to arrive at this position through logical process without making any assumptions, or is such an affirmation an article of faith?

Is it possible to ask that question without making any assumptions, or is such a question embedded in an article of faith?

 

[Machiavelli]

Is it possible to ask that question without making any assumptions, or is such a question embedded in an article of faith?

I must admit, I find it hard to get my head around this whole issue.

I guess to answer your question (which may in itself be an article of faith) my question may not intrinsically be either an article of faith, nor necessarily a product of logical process. However, I think that it is probably true that the question I ask does carry certain presuppositions about what logical process is and what an article of faith is. Perhaps it would help if I was to provide my understanding of the four epistemological foundations.

(1) Logic: Deductive proofs, that is, 2 + 2 = 4 and so on.
(2) Perception: Information gained from our five senses - what we understand through our sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste.
(3) Faith: What we accept as true on the basis of another's testimony.
(4) Revelation: What is given to God beyond the above three foundations.

The only problem is that these foundations don't necessarily work in a vacuum. For instance, if we perceive things, we may get an impressionistic understanding of what we are perceiving, but this is likely to be then mediated through logical process which may confirm or deny this impression. In like manner, for us to understand something as revelation, we need to make a critical judgment that it is actually revelation. We may even see something pre-critically as slightly out-of-the-box because it doesn't correspond with our normal perceptions - whatever they may be.

Arggh, my head is beginning to spin again ...

 

[heymikey80]

I must admit, I find it hard to get my head around this whole issue.

I guess to answer your question (which may in itself be an article of faith) my question may not intrinsically be either an article of faith, nor necessarily a product of logical process. However, I think that it is probably true that the question I ask does carry certain presuppositions about what logical process is and what an article of faith is. Perhaps it would help if I was to provide my understanding of the four epistemological foundations.
* * *
Arggh, my head is beginning to spin again ...

OK, I'd hate to make it spin more but it sounds like you're looking for philosophical basis. (and ... Hi! That interests me, too.) That's fine.

The basic problem with questions of revelation and inspiration is that they all consist in presuppositions. So the inevitable answer to any such question is, "Of course they have assumptions associated with them."

To get to special revelation there's a minimum of assumptions to deal with, so let's at least get our heads around that. Special revelation results from the existence of God (an authoritative creator) and second, the desire of God to communicate some kind of information with His creatures.

Without that desire, you end in Deism or agnosticism. With that desire, you end in revelatory theism.

The conclusion that God is interpersonal (and not pantheistic or apersonal) is concluded from the assumptions that persons are created as well: an assumption that some deny. These feel that personhood is only ephemeral, and thus not "real".

Inspiration (God-breathedness) is concluded from the existence of special revelation. I'm not sure how special revelation could be something other than directed by God, if God sought to communicate with His creatures.

Inerrancy/infallibility is a tougher issue, it seeks an extended assumption that God desires to communicate some message with unerring authority among those in His creation.

But to my knowledge that's essentially how the "end" theology is constructed. Proof (or confirmation or demonstration) of these assumptions from empirical data or from other assumptions via logic, there are people who will bring out evidence of such. But they seem to exist to support the hypothesis, not to require the assumption. Often they are practically overwhelming, though. The prophetic claims for Isaiah and Ezekiel are impressive, for instance.

I'm not sure if this is what you want ... it's a more philosophical side of things, which is what I normally get my head around.