INERRANCY AND INCONSISTENCY:
A REPLY TO TILL
1. Introductory Remarks
-------------------- DAVIS:
Suppose someone foolishly suggests to you that _my shirt is not red_ entails that _my shirt is blue_. How should you respond? Well, one way of responding would be to give what philosophers call a counterexample. The basic idea here is to describe a possible situation (it doesn't have to be actual) which is consistent with your shirt's not being red, and which together with that state of affairs entails that your shirt isn't blue either. So we could argue that it is possible that _my shirt is green_. This is consistent with _my shirt is not red_ and together with it implies that _my shirt is NOT blue_. Hence, the inference in question is false; it is false that _my shirt is not red_ implies _my shirt is blue_.>>
TILL: However, if blue were the only alternative to a shirt's not being red, anyone aware of this would be completely justified in assuming that Davis's shirt were blue if he said that it wasn't red. This is what Davis can't seem to understand. Imperfection is the only alternative to a book's not being perfect. Just one slight imperfection would keep it from being perfect.
That is all that I have been arguing. So if Mark were perfect when God inspired it, there would have been no need for God to inspire the writing of Matthew, for if the added material in Matthew were necessary to perfection, then an omniscient, omnipotent deity would have had Mark include it.
Likewise, if the changes that Matthew made in the way that Mark reported certain events were necessary for perfection, then an omniscient, omnipotent deity would have had Mark state them that way. Why can't Davis see that?
DAVIS: <<I described a possible (but not necessarily actual) state of affairs [namely, (A5c-e)] which is consistent with God's being omnipotent and omniscient, but which together with that fact implies there will be _more than one_ inerrant gospel record (if any).
2. The Status of (A4)>>
TILL: The problem with all of the (A5c-e) and (A4) approach that Davis just can't seem to tear himself away from is that I don't even remember what (A5c-e) and (A4) were, and I don't have copies of the post on which he included this.
(Who can save everything that comes through on a list like Errancy?) I do wish that Davis could just once get down to explaining himself in simple, everyday language.
I am going to assume that (A5c-e) or (A4) concerns his libertarian view, i.e., the writers were free to write as they chose; however, a posting that I sent earlier today quoted from Pastor Bischoff's first rebuttal in my *Christian News* debate on biblical inerrancy. Those quotations will show very clearly that true inerrantists don't believe that the writers were free to choose; they believe that the *very* words were God's words. Since errancy is the only alternative to inerrancy, then Davis must explain exactly how Mark's inerrant gospel had to be improved on by the writing of Matthew's inerrant gospel, and then how that Matthew's inerrant gospel had to be improved on by the writing of Luke's gospel, etc. If it was necessary for Matthew's gospel to contain information that wasn't in Mark's gospel (and it does contain such information), then this was an error on the part of an omniscient, omnipotent deity, who found it necessary to revise his previously inerrant, perfect gospel. I do wish that Davis would address this and forget about trying to dazzle us with philosophical jargon.
DAVIS (after citing my quotations from Falwell and DeHoff): <<This is a very revealing comment. It shows that Till completely identifies the doctrine of inerrancy with the expression it finds in, say, Falwell and DeHoff. He uses the term `inerrancy' to refer only to what _these_ individuals have said about the doctrine. But then he wants to pull out of the hat at the end that inerrancy _tout court_ is irrational, which doesn't follow. (This was the essential point of my first post.) This point is accentuated by the fact that if libertarian versions of inerrancy are even _possibly true_, the inconsistency Till speaks of doesn't even exist. (This was the essential thrust of my second post).
TILL: Well, really, my interest is in attacking the inerrancy doctrine as it is believed and taught by fundamentalists like Falwell, DeHoff, Bischoff, Geisler, Archer, Arndt, Torrey, Haley, etc. I really don't see any need to attack the view that Davis has, because it isn't representative of what true inerrantists believe. If someone wants to write about the "libertarian" view, he is welcome to do so. So if I want to show that the inerrantist position is inconsistent and illogical, why shouldn't I approach it from the view of those who are its chief spokesmen rather than from the view of someone I had never even heard of until I connected to the internet?
It isn't a matter of whether the "libertarian" view is correct or incorrect; it is a matter of my purpose being to refute the fundamentalist view of inerrancy, and I can't do that by discussing the libertarian view. I would think that Davis could see that. If, for example, I should want to show that the Japanese view of the history of WWII is incorrect, it would be rather idiotic of me to approach my task by showing that the German view was incorrect, because the German view wouldn't necessarily represent the full particulars of the Japanese view.
DAVIS: <<It is very difficult to see how this comment relates to the soundness of my argument at all. Suppose Till is right about this alleged character defect. Is this a suitable topic for discussion in a scholarly forum? If I suffer from an excess desire to let my fellows know how wonderful I am, wouldn't it be more appropriate to write my wife, or possibly my department chairperson?>>
TILL: It isn't a character defect that I am alleging. I am simply saying that Davis has a communication problem. Those who have not had any formal training or self-training in philosophy will find it difficult to read his postings, and probably these readers would simply skip what he is posting.
DAVIS: <<3. The Status of my Counterexample to (A4)
---------------------------------------
What does Till have to say about my counterexample? In my second post, I argued that libertarianism was _possibly_ true, and that a libertarian version of the inerrancy doctrine was _possible_. I then argued that, if so, there is a _possible_ state of affairs [namely, (A5c-e)] which shows that (A4) is false.>>
TILL: For the umpteenth time, I'm not interested in what the "libertarian" view of inerrancy is. I never write about the libertarian view, although I am well aware that liberal theologians hold to this view. I am even aware that some ultra-liberal theologians believe that God inspired only the ideas but that the writers chose the wrong words to present those ideas. Hence, there are even ideological errors in the Bible, which they insist is still the "word of God" on a higher level. Now does Davis want me to say that my four-gospels argument doesn't refute this libertarian view? Well, okay, I will admit that, because I have never thought for one moment that it did. BUT WILL HE PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND AN IMPORTANT POINT. My article that he thinks he has refuted was never intended to be a refutation of the libertarian view. IT WAS INTENDED AS A REFUTATION OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST VIEW OF INERRANCY. What can I say to make it any plainer?
DAVIS: <<That Till asks this question (about a perfect biography of Margaret Thatcher) is again evidence that he equates inerrantism with `DeHoffian inerrantism'; he's got those DeHoffian blinders on again, causing him to treat all inerrantists as a monolithic voting block.
TILL: All I can do is direct Davis to my statements above and hope that some of it seeps through to him. It isn't a matter of DeHoffian blinders but Geislerian, Bischoffian, Archerian, Arndtian, Haleyian, Torreyian, etc. blinders too, because this view that I concentrate on refuting is the fundamentalist view of inerrancy. Just let me say that I grew up in the Church of Christ, I attended two of its Bible colleges, I preached for it for twelve years, and I have debated several of its preachers. I think I know what fundamentalists believe about Bible inerrancy. So now I will ask Davis a question. Has he ever read such books as *The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by Archer, *When Critics Ask* by Geisler, *Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible* by John Haley, *Alleged Contradictions in the Bible* by Arndt, *Difficulties in the Bible* by Torrey, and DeHoff's book previously cited. If not, I suggest that he read one or two of them, and then when he understands what the fundamentalist view of inerrancy is, perhaps we can discuss this issue on a less confrontational level.
TILL: <<So what _is_ the answer to Till's question on my libertarian view? Simply that if libertarianism is possibly true, then it could be that it was not within God's power (though omnipotent) to _cause_ anyone to _freely_ write a perfect (i.e, complete and inerrant) biography of Jesus, Margaret Thatcher, or whomever. For if libertarianism is true, free will and causal determinism are logically incompatible.>>
TILL: No, my answer to your question is that my argument under consideration certainly does not refute the libertarian view, but how many times must I say that I wasn't even addressing the libertarian view?
DAVIS: And, of course, if this view of things is possible, then comments such as
<<So would Davis explain to us how that an omniscient,
omnipotent deity
*verbally* inspired Mark to write his gospel (so that Mark didn't
use a
single word or leave out a single word that God wanted him to
use) but
later *verbally* inspired Matthew to write a second version of the
gospel and had Matthew use words that were inconsistent with the way
that Mark had told the same story? I'd be very interested in hearing Davis's explanation of that>>
TILL: The key word in my statement that Davis quoted is "verbally." Does Davis even know what the doctrine of "verbal" inspiration is? No, he doesn't; he has demonstrated that repeatedly. Libertarians do not believe in *verbal* inspiration; therefore, I would never direct an argument like the one under consideration to those who believe in the libertarian view. It would be like arguing with a Church-of-Christ preacher that Baptism means immersion. That is a point that the Church of Christ already believes. So why would I try to discredit the Bible to libertarians by arguing that it has contradictions and inconsistencies in it. All they would do is say, "Well, sure it does. So what?"
DAVIS: <<are entirely misplaced and evince a profound misunderstanding of the libertarian position. For if God verbally inspires X to write Y, then God _causes_ X to write Y. But if so, then if libertarianism is true, X does not write Y _freely_, which contradicts the libertarian construal of the inerrancy doctrine I laid out. If this libertarian scenario is even possibly true, then it could be that it was not within God's power (though omnipotent) to cause X to write Y freely, thus guaranteeing perfection "on the first try" so to speak. And, as I argued previously, this in no way denigrates God's power.>>
TILL: Will someone else on the list try to get through to this guy and explain to him that I don't argue against the libertarian view of the Bible in *The Skeptical Review,* on this list, or in anything that I write? I have to wonder about a philosophy professor who can't understand something as obvious as that. How many times do I have to say it before it sinks in?
My only complaint with Davis's statement just quoted would be that if it wasn't "within God's power (although omnipotent) to cause X to write Y freely, thus guaranteeing perfection on the first try," then God wouldn't be omnipotent, because he would have tried to do something and failed. (It is strange that Davis would say this, because believers in the libertarian view don't think that God tried to guarantee perfection when he inspired the biblical writers, and I suspect that if libertarians were asked, they would say if God had actually tried for perfection, he would have succeeded.) Davis's statement would be somewhat like arguing that a deity (although omniscient) might not know what the capital of France is if he were asked.
DAVIS: <<Subsequently, however, I thought subscribers to APOLOGIA might be interested. Subscribers to ERRANCY saw my posts only because Jeff Lowder asked permission to forward them to the list (which I gladly gave).>>
TILL: It's strange that Davis posted his "rebuttal" on apologia, a list that will not allow any dissenters on it. I would think that Errancy, a list that the author of the article being rebutted is very active on, would have been the logical place to post it. I invite Davis to do this in the future. All he needs to do is subscribe to the list (if he isn't a member already).
DAVIS: << My justification for the use of philosophical terminology (also used by Richard Gale, Quentin Smith, and Michael Martin) is twofold. First, philosophy is my field, so it comes with the territory. Secondly, I didn't write my pieces on Till for ERRANCY or APOLOGIA or even Till himself. They are the product of private study (where there is no audience). >>
TILL: Well, okay, I can accept that, but I would suggest (as one who taught written communications on the college level for 30 years) that if Davis afterwards decides to post his study on a list where laymen will be reading it, he should revise it with the audience in mind.
Finally, I would be interested to know if these exchanges have in any way clarified my purpose to Mr. Davis. I'm particularly interested in knowing if he understands that addressing an argument to a Bible fundamentalist entails approaches that would be entirely different if addressing a libertarian. I specifically want to know if he can see that I fully understand that no argument based on identifying discrepancies, contradictions, inconsistencies, etc. would refute the "libertarian" view of biblical authorship, which is a view that admits that errors are in the Bible. However, I'd like to know if he can understand that such arguments are very relevant to those who hold that the Bible is totally, completely, and fully free of errors of ANY kind because an omniscient, omnipotent deity chose the *very* words that went into the Bible.
F. Till