In our last two lectures we discussed belief in the Bible as rational and warranted. In other words we dealt with what kind of belief our belief in the Bible is. Tonight, 10/31/2023, we are going to discuss how we believe. Do we believe the Bible based on a series of compounding arguments and reach a conclusion? Perhaps. Do we believe the Bible in a more immediate way, as if the Bible is a testimony from someone with whom you have little to no reason to doubt? What if this were the case? Are there any other beliefs we hold in similar ways? Click the link below and jump on with us tonight and join the discussion.
Last week we discussed Alvin Plantinga’s 5 criteria for warranted and rational belief: properly functioning faculties, in an environment conducive to those faculties, according to a design plan, aimed at truth, and successfully so aimed. Tonight, October 24th, 2023, we are going to apply those criteria to Christian beliefs as well as discuss the nature of de facto and de jure objections to our argument thus far.
What do you believe? How do you know your belief is a good one? Is there something about belief in your Bible that makes said belief special?
Tonight, October 17th, 2023, we are going to discuss the elements that make a belief true, justified, warranted, and rational. To do this we are going to explore Alvin Plantinga’s five criteria for warranted and rational belief: properly functioning faculties, in an environment conducive to those faculties, according to a design plan, aimed at truth, and successfully so aimed.
These things and much more will be discussed tonight. See you there.
Have you ever believed something that simply wasn’t what you believed?
“It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble. It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So.”
– Anonymous
Tonight, October 10th, 2023, we are going to discuss wrong beliefs made right and more particularly how those beliefs are made right. How does one go from a Muslim, to a believer in Christ? How does one believe the world came about by time and chance to believing the Triune God created and upholds all things by the word of His power?
And what does it mean when a person changes their belief from error to truth? What does it mean for the person? Has the person changed? If so, how and in what ways? What does it mean for a person whose belief changes from truth to error? Has the person changed? If so, how and in what ways?
These things and much more will be discussed tonight. See you there.
Due to satellite issues, last Tuesday’s lecture was interrupted and moved to 9/19. Tomorrow night 9/19 at 7:30 we will hold the fifteenth lecture of series on “A Theological Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text –Derivative Inspiration
Turretin’s introductory statement is followed by three supporting arguments:
It is one thing to be an interpreter, quite another to be a prophet…The prophet as God-inspired (theopneustos) cannot err, but an interpreter as a man lacks no human quality since he is always liable to err.
All versions are streams; the original text is the fountain whence they flow. The latter is the rule, the former the thing ruled, having only human authority.[1]
Turretin’s first argument lay the groundwork for the complete paradigm by dividing inspiration into two categories: the inspiration of the “matter and sentences” res et sententiae, and the inspiration of the “very words” which he says was “dictated (dictiae) by the Holy Spirit.”
Res et sententiae means “according to the things or issues signified by the sentence or meaning.” In other words, the Holy Spirit inspired the meaning of the sentence. As Zacharias Ursinus wrote, “Now when we name the holy Scripture, we mean not so much the characters of the letters and volumes, but rather the sentences which are contained in them, which they shall never be able to prove to be of less antiquitie than the Church.”[2] Not only the meaning, or the substance of the sentence is inspired but the “very words” or the shape of the Greek and Hebrew words were dictated by the Holy Spirit. Both the form, outward appearance, and the meaning, what the word meant was inspired by the Holy Spirit. After changing the linguistic form, translation can only possess res et sententiae, or the meaning of the sentence.
Secondly, he makes a distinction between the “prophet” or the holy men that were moved by the Holy Spirit, and the interpreter of the apographa. The “prophet” could not err because his message was inspired, where the interpreter of the inspired message “is always liable to err.” Translating a version, unlike the Original, has intrinsic liabilities due to the human element.
And thirdly, in his comparison of the apographa with a version, the apographa is the source, or “fountain” while the translation is the “stream” or completely dependent upon the source for its existence. The apographa is the rule, standard, or canon that governs or “rules” the translation. The inspired source, the apographa, is authoritas because God is the Author, the thing ruled, the translation, relative to the apographa possesses only human authority.
“Nevertheless,” Turretin continues, “all authority must not be denied to versions.”[1] It is here that he builds upon his earlier argument distinguishing
a twofold divine authority: one of things (res), the other of words (verba). The former relates to the substance of the doctrine which constitutes the internal form of the Scriptures. The latter relates to the accident of writing, the external and accidental form. The source has both, being God-inspired (theopneustos) both as to the words and things; but versions have only the first, being expressed in human not in divine words.”[2]
With the writing of a version and the change of linguistic symbols, a trustworthy translation can be considered infallible only as regards the formal, inward authority of the translation- as to its substantia doctrinae, quaod res or what the words and sentences mean. “Hence it follows, Turretin continues,
that the versions as such are not authentic and canonical in themselves (because of human labor and talent). Therefore, under this relation (schesei), they may be exposed to errors and admit of corrections, but nevertheless are authentic as to the doctrine they contain (which is divine and infallible). Thus, they do not, as such, formally (formaliter– in regard to the writing and transmission) support divine faith as to the words, but materially (materialiter– with regard to the teaching transmitted) as to the substance of doctrine expressed in them.[3]
Translating exposes the version to errors. Nonetheless, a version can be “authentic as to the doctrine it contains (which is both divine and infallible). This derived authenticity in the version’s doctrinal substance supports divine faith.
[2] Zacharias Ursinus, The Sum of the Christian Religion: Wherein are debated and resolved the Questions of whatsoever points of moment, which have been or are controversed in Divinity. Translated into English by Henry Parrie, out of the last and best Latin Editions (Oxford: Printed at Joseph Barnes and are to be sold in Pauls Churchyard at the sign of the Tigers head, 1587), 16.
Don’t miss this important study of Derivative Inspiration for Christian theology, ecclesiology, and personal edification, Tuesday 9/19 at 7:30pm.
Tonight 9/12 at 7:30 we will hold the fifteenth lecture of series on “A Theological Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text –Derivative Inspiration
Turretin’s introductory statement is followed by three supporting arguments:
It is one thing to be an interpreter, quite another to be a prophet…The prophet as God-inspired (theopneustos) cannot err, but an interpreter as a man lacks no human quality since he is always liable to err.
All versions are streams; the original text is the fountain whence they flow. The latter is the rule, the former the thing ruled, having only human authority.[1]
Turretin’s first argument lay the groundwork for the complete paradigm by dividing inspiration into two categories: the inspiration of the “matter and sentences” res et sententiae, and the inspiration of the “very words” which he says was “dictated (dictiae) by the Holy Spirit.”
Res et sententiae means “according to the things or issues signified by the sentence or meaning.” In other words, the Holy Spirit inspired the meaning of the sentence. As Zacharias Ursinus wrote, “Now when we name the holy Scripture, we mean not so much the characters of the letters and volumes, but rather the sentences which are contained in them, which they shall never be able to prove to be of less antiquitie than the Church.”[2] Not only the meaning, or the substance of the sentence is inspired but the “very words” or the shape of the Greek and Hebrew words were dictated by the Holy Spirit. Both the form, outward appearance, and the meaning, what the word meant was inspired by the Holy Spirit. After changing the linguistic form, translation can only possess res et sententiae, or the meaning of the sentence.
Secondly, he makes a distinction between the “prophet” or the holy men that were moved by the Holy Spirit, and the interpreter of the apographa. The “prophet” could not err because his message was inspired, where the interpreter of the inspired message “is always liable to err.” Translating a version, unlike the Original, has intrinsic liabilities due to the human element.
And thirdly, in his comparison of the apographa with a version, the apographa is the source, or “fountain” while the translation is the “stream” or completely dependent upon the source for its existence. The apographa is the rule, standard, or canon that governs or “rules” the translation. The inspired source, the apographa, is authoritas because God is the Author, the thing ruled, the translation, relative to the apographa possesses only human authority.
“Nevertheless,” Turretin continues, “all authority must not be denied to versions.”[1] It is here that he builds upon his earlier argument distinguishing
a twofold divine authority: one of things (res), the other of words (verba). The former relates to the substance of the doctrine which constitutes the internal form of the Scriptures. The latter relates to the accident of writing, the external and accidental form. The source has both, being God-inspired (theopneustos) both as to the words and things; but versions have only the first, being expressed in human not in divine words.”[2]
With the writing of a version and the change of linguistic symbols, a trustworthy translation can be considered infallible only as regards the formal, inward authority of the translation- as to its substantia doctrinae, quaod res or what the words and sentences mean. “Hence it follows, Turretin continues,
that the versions as such are not authentic and canonical in themselves (because of human labor and talent). Therefore, under this relation (schesei), they may be exposed to errors and admit of corrections, but nevertheless are authentic as to the doctrine they contain (which is divine and infallible). Thus, they do not, as such, formally (formaliter– in regard to the writing and transmission) support divine faith as to the words, but materially (materialiter– with regard to the teaching transmitted) as to the substance of doctrine expressed in them.[3]
Translating exposes the version to errors. Nonetheless, a version can be “authentic as to the doctrine it contains (which is both divine and infallible). This derived authenticity in the version’s doctrinal substance supports divine faith.
[2] Zacharias Ursinus, The Sum of the Christian Religion: Wherein are debated and resolved the Questions of whatsoever points of moment, which have been or are controversed in Divinity. Translated into English by Henry Parrie, out of the last and best Latin Editions (Oxford: Printed at Joseph Barnes and are to be sold in Pauls Churchyard at the sign of the Tigers head, 1587), 16.
Don’t miss this important study of Derivative Inspiration for Christian theology, ecclesiology, and personal edification, Tuesday 9/12 at 7:30pm.
Tonight 9/5 at 7:30 we will hold the thirteenth lecture of series three on “A Theological Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text –The Role of B..B. Warfield
Leading up to the national implications of replacing Scripture with history in Germany, was the wide-ranging impact of this theological transition in the lectures of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, (1887-1921) Professor of Theology at Princeton Seminary. Perhaps the most impactful miscarriages of the application of providence were the redefinition of the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, section 8, “and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.” Having returned from Germany, being immersed in the historical critical method, Warfield’s Oxford lectures forever changed the theological trajectory of the American academy and subsequently the Church. If ever such egregious words were penned, Warfield wrote,
In the sense of the Westminster Confession, therefore, the multiplicity of copies of the Scriptures, the several early efforts towards the revision of the text, the raising up of scholars in our own day to collect and collate MSS., and to reform the text on scientific principles – of our Tishendorf’s and Tregelles, and Westcotts and Horts – are all part of God’s singular care and providence in preserving His inspired Word pure.[1]
[1] Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and its Work (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), 239. Also see Karl Barth, Der Romerbrief (Bern: G. A. Baschlin, 1919), preface, as cited in James M. Robinson, “Hermeneutics Since Barth,” in New Frontiers in Theology, vol. 2, The New Hermeneutic, ed. James M. Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr. (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 22. Barth writes, “The critical historical method of Biblical research has its validity. It points to the preparation for the understanding that is never superfluous. But if I had to choose between it and the old doctrine of inspiration, I would decidedly lay hold of the latter. It has greater, deeper, more important validity, for it points to the actual work of understanding, without which all preparation is useless. I am happy not to choose between the two.” Note the similarity between Barth’s modulation of the relationship between inspiration and historical criticism with that of Princeton Theologian Benjamin Warfield.
Don’t miss this important study of the Immediate inspiration for Christian theology, ecclesiology, and personal edification, Tuesday 9/5 at 7:30pm.
Tonight 8/29 at 7:30 we will hold the thirteenth lecture of series three on “A Theological Grounding for a Standard Sacred Text –God’s Singular Care and Providence and the Sacred Apographa
Eighty-eight years earlier, in book 2, chapter 16, of the Institutes, Calvin discussed the pivotal role played by the providence of God. He concludes that everything is “governed by God’s secret plan in such a way that nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by Him.”[1] Providence is “secret” because it is the personal exercise of God. Trying to categorize or systematize the intricacies of God’s providential work is beyond the rational scope of men. Only after the “secret” has been divulged in the course of history can the work of providence be seen for what it is. Even then, the limitations of men often only allow them to see the aggregate parts of providence, never living to see the beauty of the whole and blessed to live it its fulfillment. The early collators of inspired Scripture could only dream of the day that the sixty-six-book library that is the canon was between two covers as a single volume. Their obscure and unsung part of the aggregate was essential to making the whole a reality. In this regard it is also important to note that the early collators of the aggregate parts did not know how many books comprised the completed canon. What they knew, through the testimony of the word itself and the Spirit, is that their portion was canonical. It is God’s “singular care and providence” that unites the whole in that it is His word and Spirit that makes the collection of words and books throughout the ages a work of providence.
All attempts made to discredit the inspired word “finally devolves” or is finally handed over to the Holy Spirit, the Author of the sacred Writings, the written inspired word being the Holy Spirits “registers and transcripts.” Use of the word “transcript” tends toward the understanding of the Holy Spirit dictating the inspired word. The following is a polemic against Enlightenment theological erosion and a call to return to pre-critical Theological categories by looking at two principal passages on the Doctrine of Inspiration — 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21.
The formulation of the doctrine of inspiration is in large part been an apologetic record of the doctrine’s historic defense. The adjectives immediate, verbal, plenary, now codified in Protestant Orthodoxy, and later the adjective derivative, aid the Church in specifically defining inspiration and enabling the Church to give both a didactic and apologetic response. Christianity is wholly dependent on the inspired Word. If there is no inspiration, there is no Christianity.
Standard Sacred Text.com 