tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post838487880602644063..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Literalism and inerrantismAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-75430005896456833702012-03-09T08:25:27.404-06:002012-03-09T08:25:27.404-06:00Thanks for the thoughtful response!Thanks for the thoughtful response!Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-45503579098166188622012-03-08T12:58:54.796-06:002012-03-08T12:58:54.796-06:00Dear Alexander,
This is my long in coming respons...Dear Alexander,<br /><br />This is my long in coming response to your comments on my blog post in January. It is not precisely a response to you, as I think your reading of Dei Verbum 11 is probably correct, but an attempt to put in context your reading: http://www.biblejunkies.com/2012/03/inerrancy-approaches-to-dei-verbum-11.htmlBible Junkieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741057277630747020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-82855725869816728662012-01-18T14:14:25.378-06:002012-01-18T14:14:25.378-06:00I posted some responses on your blog.
The issue w...I posted some responses on your blog.<br /><br />The issue with oeconomic necessity is this. Inerrance isn't just the absence of error. There are texts where there is no error. Here is one:<br /><br />"There are over 6.5 billion people on earth. About half of them are female. 2+2=4."<br /><br />My quoted text makes three assertions, each of them true. But it's not inerrant, because although it doesn't have any errors, in some sense it could have had error. Scripture, on the other hand, not only doesn't happen to have error, but in some sense of "must" must be free of error. The notion of "oeconomic necessity" is just my way of giving a name to the specific sense of "must" here. It's a conditional "must", conditional on God's specific choice of a plan of salvation for us.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-22673592553890397182012-01-17T23:01:26.151-06:002012-01-17T23:01:26.151-06:00A short response to your post. I did not understan...A short response to your post. I did not understand your post on "oeconomic necessity," so my apologies if I missed something: http://www.biblejunkies.com/2012/01/biblical-literalism-and-inerrantism.htmlBible Junkieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741057277630747020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-40270011481573338252012-01-17T07:50:35.570-06:002012-01-17T07:50:35.570-06:00p.s. I think that of the three inferences, the lit...p.s. I think that of the three inferences, the literalist privileges (b), and often does so without enough sophistication on the literary side.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-54369845720024030102012-01-17T07:47:57.558-06:002012-01-17T07:47:57.558-06:001. This inference should be defeasible. This way,...1. This inference should be defeasible. This way, Scripture interpretation will be affected by other sources of knowledge, but need not be their plaything. <br /><br />2. That inference doesn't always push in the direction of literalism. For instance, it doesn't push in that direction when on a literalist interpretation there appear are to be conflicts within a text that would have been evident to the final author/editor. (This is arguably the case with Genesis 1-2.) It also doesn't push in that direction when the literary form is strongly stylized and poetic, as in Genesis 1.<br /><br />3. I think I want to say that for any inerrantist there should be at least three inferences whose interplay goes into interpretation of Scripture:<br /> a. Apparently ~p, therefore Scripture does not assert p.<br /> b. On philological and literary grounds, Scripture appears to assert p, therefore Scripture asserts p.<br /> c. The predominant or privileged interpretation of Scripture in the Christian Tradition appears to be that it asserts that p, therefore Scripture asserts p.<br /><br />The Catholic boosts c by arguing that there are particularly authoritative aspects of the Tradition such that if in fact these aspects interpret Scripture as asserting p, then necessarily (oeconomic necessity) Scripture asserts p. (That's compatible with the defeasibility of c, since c's premise is that the Tradition <em>appears</em> to interpret Scripture a certain way.)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-74250723060708533642012-01-17T07:27:20.417-06:002012-01-17T07:27:20.417-06:00Surely part of what's going on here is that, u...Surely part of what's going on here is that, unless Scripture interpretation is to be entirely the plaything of other sources of knowledge, we need the inference from "Scripture appears to assert p" to "Scripture asserts p." And that will push in the direction of literalism.Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.com