Biblical Inerrancy: Three Views Think Theism podcast

6y ago 52:30

Fetch error

Hmmm there seems to be a problem fetching this series right now. Last successful fetch was on March 12, 2024 01:28 (1+ y ago)

What now? This series will be checked again in the next day. If you believe it should be working, please verify the publisher's feed link below is valid and includes actual episode links. You can contact support to request the feed be immediately fetched.

Content provided by The Apologists at Texas A&M University, The Apologists at Texas A, and M University. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by The Apologists at Texas A&M University, The Apologists at Texas A, and M University or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

The authority of the Bible is central to Christianity. Human authors were carried along by the Holy Spirit to provide the written revelation of God. Many Christians believe that God, being Truth itself, could not inspire a collection of documents containing any error, thus, leading to the idea of biblical inerrancy. But what does this mean? What constitutes an “error”? Are modern categories of history and literature appropriate to evaluate an ancient collection? In this episode, Katie surveys three perspectives from evangelical Christians.

Inerrancy is Too Simple to Describe the Bible: Peter Enns rejects inerrancy wholesale. No matter how defined, inerrancy doesn’t describe what the Bible does.
Inerrancy Through Accommodation: John R. Franke accepts inerrancy when cast in terms of the Bible as a missional text. Written for people of vastly different backgrounds, God’s Word accommodates to cross various boundaries.
Inerrancy as Descriptor, not Definer: Kevin J. Vanhoozer accepts inerrancy taking cues from St. Augustine. Inerrancy states what the Bible says is true, but does not tell you what the Bible says. Once inerrancy begins defining particular interpretations, it is (improperly) taking the place of hermeneutics

Each of these perspectives is spelled out in more detail in the book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Zondervan, 2013). Additional contributors include Albert Mohler and Michael F. Bird.

Related Episodes

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Spotify

RSS feed: http://rc-tamu.org/feed/podcast/think-theism

100 episodes

Inerrancy is Too Simple to Describe the Bible: Peter Enns rejects inerrancy wholesale. No matter how defined, inerrancy doesn’t describe what the Bible does.
Inerrancy Through Accommodation: John R. Franke accepts inerrancy when cast in terms of the Bible as a missional text. Written for people of vastly different backgrounds, God’s Word accommodates to cross various boundaries.
Inerrancy as Descriptor, not Definer: Kevin J. Vanhoozer accepts inerrancy taking cues from St. Augustine. Inerrancy states what the Bible says is true, but does not tell you what the Bible says. Once inerrancy begins defining particular interpretations, it is (improperly) taking the place of hermeneutics