Thesis advisor: Khaled Anatolios / Examines Joseph Ratzingers's contribution to the theology of inspiration and inerrancy. / Thesis (STL) — Boston College, 2011. / Submitted to: Boston College. School of Theology and Ministry. / Discipline: Sacred Theology.

Ever since the Reformation the providence of God has been variously applied in the doctrine of scripture. In the Reformed and Protestant Orthodox traditions, and in the context of polemic surrounding the nature of scripture that has prevailed down the centuries, providence has always played an important supporting role. In the case of inspiration, it is applied to the preparation of God’s spokesmen. In the case of canon, God is understood to have supervised the reception of just those books He intended for His church. In the case of textual transmission, ‘a singular act of God’s providence’ has preserved the scriptures through time. Thus, providence undergirds the Reformed doctrine of scripture. It functions almost at the level of presupposition. However, such usage is seldom justified, and this raises the question of warrant. The Bible itself must be revisited to determine if the application of providence to scripture in Reformed Dogmatics is legitimate by its own standard of Sola Scriptura. A survey and exegesis of a number of important passages confirms that it is. It shows that the application of providence in the doctrine of scripture is not only justified, but is also helpful to a better understanding of the nature of God and His written Word. / MA (Dogmatics), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Ever since the Reformation the providence of God has been variously applied in the doctrine of scripture. In the Reformed and Protestant Orthodox traditions, and in the context of polemic surrounding the nature of scripture that has prevailed down the centuries, providence has always played an important supporting role. In the case of inspiration, it is applied to the preparation of God’s spokesmen. In the case of canon, God is understood to have supervised the reception of just those books He intended for His church. In the case of textual transmission, ‘a singular act of God’s providence’ has preserved the scriptures through time. Thus, providence undergirds the Reformed doctrine of scripture. It functions almost at the level of presupposition. However, such usage is seldom justified, and this raises the question of warrant. The Bible itself must be revisited to determine if the application of providence to scripture in Reformed Dogmatics is legitimate by its own standard of Sola Scriptura. A survey and exegesis of a number of important passages confirms that it is. It shows that the application of providence in the doctrine of scripture is not only justified, but is also helpful to a better understanding of the nature of God and His written Word. / MA (Dogmatics), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

No description available.

In 1978 a group of evangelical philosophers and theologians held a meeting to decide what the definitive statement on the doctrine of inerrancy would be. Drawing on the thought of B.B. Warfield and others this group came up with a statement comprising of a short statement, nineteen articles including both statements of affirmation and denial, as well as, an exposition of these articles. Taken in its entirety, this statement is intended to be the Evangelical statement determining all subsequent information about the doctrine of inerrancy. Leading evangelicals, including Carl F.H. Henry signed this document in order to establish a consensus on what one meant when using the term inerrancy. Almost three decades later this term is still used with a sense of confusion and the doctrine is no less controversial. In fact, it still is responsible for the division of departments in many evangelical institutions of higher education in North America. The following thesis hopes to help loosen this doctrine from its theological ‘stronghold’ and place it in a position where it will be less likely to cause division amongst evangelicals. By examining the thought of both B.B. Warfield, who helped create the doctrine, and Carl F.H. Henry, who played a contemporary role in the formation of the Chicago Statement and who might rightly be considered the evangelical theologian of the twentieth century, this thesis brings to light certain presuppositions of the doctrine of inerrancy that allow it take a position that undergirds other theological doctrines. By identifying the nature of truth and authority as the main tenants of the inerrantist position, the thesis examines these terms in light of the thought of both Warfield and Henry. Their thought is found to be remarkably similar to certain principles and concerns raised by Enlightenment philosophers and it is concluded that the understandings of truth and authority presupposed by the doctrine of inerrancy ultimately are biased by Enlightenment philosophy and so are an inadequate representation of the terms as used in Scripture and tradition. The thesis suggests that an adequate understanding of truth would be primarily Christological in nature and, therefore, a larger category than the one presupposed by the doctrine of inerrancy. Also, an adequate understanding of authority would presuppose the contemporary work of the Holy Spirit, which again makes for a much larger pneumatological category than the one presupposed by the doctrine of inerrancy as it is currently defined. Enlarging these categories in no way necessitates the denial of inerrancy altogether. Rather it removes the doctrine of inerrancy from its theological pedestal and places it amongst other beliefs that might support the truth and authority of Scripture but by no means establish them. The concluding chapter ends with a statement of what this new doctrine of inerrancy might look like.

One of the distinguishing marks of American Evangelicalism is a commitment to the Bible as the only authority for faith and practice. A question often debated is whether the Bible should be viewed as inerrant, and if so, how the concept of inerrancy should be understood. This study suggests that the concept of inerrancy should be maintained, but that the concept must be understood in accordance with the way in which the biblical materials present the concepts of truth and its opposite. The value of the doctrine of inerrancy must be found in a better understanding not only of the didactic portions but also of the phenomena ofthe biblical materials. The first chapter of this study looks at nature American Evangelicalism and considers the historical development of the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. The next three chapters consider in turn each of three divisions within American Evangelicalism about the understanding and usage of the doctrine of inerrancy: Complete Inerrancy, Conditional Inerrancy, and Limited Inerrancy. Complete Inerrancy is the most rigid of the three, maintaining that in the original writings of the Bible there were no errors, neither in spiritual nor in secular matters. Conditional Inerrancy conditions the understanding of inerrancy by the intent and purpose for the Bible as understood from the phenomena ofthe texts. The focus is shifted from the autographs of the Scripture to the texts which the contemporary person has to read and study. Limited Inerrancy limits the usage both of the term and of the concept inerrant in relation to the Bible, preferring the descriptor infallible, arguing that neither in the original writings nor in the present texts of the Bible is inerrancy to be found. There are errors in the texts, but they do not take away from the ability of the Bible to accomplish its divine purpose ofbringing people into contact with the Redeemer God. The last chapter draws from the analysis of the arguments within American Evangelicalism material needed to construct a redefined concept of inerrancy which maintains its importance. / Philosophy, Practical & Systematic Theology / D. Th. (Systematic Theology)

One of the distinguishing marks of American Evangelicalism is a commitment to the Bible as the only authority for faith and practice. A question often debated is whether the Bible should be viewed as inerrant, and if so, how the concept of inerrancy should be understood. This study suggests that the concept of inerrancy should be maintained, but that the concept must be understood in accordance with the way in which the biblical materials present the concepts of truth and its opposite. The value of the doctrine of inerrancy must be found in a better understanding not only of the didactic portions but also of the phenomena ofthe biblical materials. The first chapter of this study looks at nature American Evangelicalism and considers the historical development of the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. The next three chapters consider in turn each of three divisions within American Evangelicalism about the understanding and usage of the doctrine of inerrancy: Complete Inerrancy, Conditional Inerrancy, and Limited Inerrancy. Complete Inerrancy is the most rigid of the three, maintaining that in the original writings of the Bible there were no errors, neither in spiritual nor in secular matters. Conditional Inerrancy conditions the understanding of inerrancy by the intent and purpose for the Bible as understood from the phenomena ofthe texts. The focus is shifted from the autographs of the Scripture to the texts which the contemporary person has to read and study. Limited Inerrancy limits the usage both of the term and of the concept inerrant in relation to the Bible, preferring the descriptor infallible, arguing that neither in the original writings nor in the present texts of the Bible is inerrancy to be found. There are errors in the texts, but they do not take away from the ability of the Bible to accomplish its divine purpose ofbringing people into contact with the Redeemer God. The last chapter draws from the analysis of the arguments within American Evangelicalism material needed to construct a redefined concept of inerrancy which maintains its importance. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / D. Th. (Systematic Theology)

No description available.

Evangelicals have been characterized as a people committed to the Bible with historical roots to the fundamentalists who were engaged in controversy with liberals in North America at the beginning of the twentieth century. Harold Lindsell's book, The Battle For The Bible (1976), led to a great deal of discussion about inerrancy among evangelicals which resulted in major conferences and the publication of a number of books and articles discussing inerrancy in the subsequent decade. The principal doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) has been from its inception a statement on inerrancy. The inerrancy debate among evangelicals took a new direction with the publication of R H Gundry's commentary on Matthew (1982). This sparked a debate concerning redaction criticism and the compatibility of using the historical-critical methodology while maintaining a commitment to the doctrine of inerrancy. Just when the debate appeared to be dying down the publication of the results of the Jesus Seminar (1993) led to several responses from evangelicals. The most controversial publication was The Jesus Crisis (1998) which accused evangelicals and some within the ETS of embracing the same methodology as those of the Jesus Seminar, refueling the debate again. Consequently this debate amongst evangelicals, particularly those associated with the ETS has continued for almost two decades. The debate has ranged over a variety of issues related to historical criticism and the study of the Gospels, including presuppositions, the Synoptic Problem, the role of harmonization, and whether the Gospels provide a strict chronology of the life of Jesus. The role of form and tradition criticism and the criteria of authenticity and whether the Gospel writers were faithful historians or creative theologians have also been points of contention in the debate. The languages that Jesus spoke and whether the Gospels preserve the ipsissima verba or vox have highlighted the differing views about the requirements of inerrancy. The redaction criticism debate has proven to have a significant role in exposing differences in methodology, definitions, presuppositions, and boundaries among evangelicals and members of the ETS. / New Testament / D.Th. (New Testament)

Evangelicals have been characterized as a people committed to the Bible with historical roots to the fundamentalists who were engaged in controversy with liberals in North America at the beginning of the twentieth century. Harold Lindsell's book, The Battle For The Bible (1976), led to a great deal of discussion about inerrancy among evangelicals which resulted in major conferences and the publication of a number of books and articles discussing inerrancy in the subsequent decade. The principal doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) has been from its inception a statement on inerrancy. The inerrancy debate among evangelicals took a new direction with the publication of R H Gundry's commentary on Matthew (1982). This sparked a debate concerning redaction criticism and the compatibility of using the historical-critical methodology while maintaining a commitment to the doctrine of inerrancy. Just when the debate appeared to be dying down the publication of the results of the Jesus Seminar (1993) led to several responses from evangelicals. The most controversial publication was The Jesus Crisis (1998) which accused evangelicals and some within the ETS of embracing the same methodology as those of the Jesus Seminar, refueling the debate again. Consequently this debate amongst evangelicals, particularly those associated with the ETS has continued for almost two decades. The debate has ranged over a variety of issues related to historical criticism and the study of the Gospels, including presuppositions, the Synoptic Problem, the role of harmonization, and whether the Gospels provide a strict chronology of the life of Jesus. The role of form and tradition criticism and the criteria of authenticity and whether the Gospel writers were faithful historians or creative theologians have also been points of contention in the debate. The languages that Jesus spoke and whether the Gospels preserve the ipsissima verba or vox have highlighted the differing views about the requirements of inerrancy. The redaction criticism debate has proven to have a significant role in exposing differences in methodology, definitions, presuppositions, and boundaries among evangelicals and members of the ETS. / New Testament / D.Th. (New Testament)