Looks Like John Tors Isn't Happy

[Apologiaphoenix]

Source: DROWNING IN DEEPER WATERS: A Response to Nick Peters and Another Look at the Evangelical Betrayal of the Bible

Source

© Copyright Original Source

I always suspected that you were one of them thar radical leftists and evilutionists. I'll bet you even got a Commie flag tacked up on the wall inside of your garage.

Don't be ridiculous!

I don't have a garage. It's hanging in my office next to my copy of "The Communist Manifesto."

[rogue06]

Don't be ridiculous!

I don't have a garage.

Can we call home and ask your wife Mr. Green Teeth?

See 3:16 and 3:47

[Apologiaphoenix]

Absolutely!

[rogue06]

Absolutely!

She agreed that you don't have a garage but said you have a poster of Mao in your carport.

[Sparko]

Nick, I think you should address his claims by showing him he is wrong in comparison to the ICBI Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

For example, the part that shows that there can be discrepancies in the bible in unimportant matters and counts:



Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

[Apologiaphoenix]

She agreed that you don't have a garage but said you have a poster of Mao in your carport.

It's next to my idol of Molech.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nick, I think you should address his claims by showing him he is wrong in comparison to the ICBI Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

For example, the part that shows that there can be discrepancies in the bible in unimportant matters and counts:



Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Yes, and it will probably be my last post on him. Otherwise he's just a tar baby.

[rogue06]

Nick, I think you should address his claims by showing him he is wrong in comparison to the ICBI Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

For example, the part that shows that there can be discrepancies in the bible in unimportant matters and counts:



Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

That is pretty much in accord with the old saying "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" (commonly translated as "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [or liberty]") and incorrectly attributed to St. Augustine but is in fact much more recent being likely first said by the Archbishop of Spalato, Marco Antonio Dominis, in 1617 and not quite a decade later by the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a., Peter Meiderlin).

Still, even if it wasn't said by Augustine it appears to be in accord with what he believed -- at least according to Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologica (c. 1273) Aquinas wrote

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

[jpholding]

He'll make a great cartoon character.

Tors reminds me of Farrell Till. Especially the mile-long rants. (Can you imagine if TektonTV had been around while I was still spanking Till?)

[TheWall]

Where there 4000 or 400000 horses
"It is innerant"
Yeah it is but there's still the issue of
"Its innerant"
But scribble issues. It is the Holy scripture inspired by God but it still needs context.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Response is up.

http://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/?p=10154

[Sparko]

Response is up.

http://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/?p=10154

Typo:

Tors has not only a far

[Apologiaphoenix]

Fixed

[Sparko]

Fixed

quite a nice reply to him.

[psstein]

I haven't read both sides of the debate, but I remember some lunatic publishing an article that argued that inerrancy can only be grounded by the rejection of Markan priority.

This appeared in the Journal of ETS, for the record.