Bob Thune 2004-03-17
From Summa Bergania
From : Bob Thune, Jr
Sent : Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:16 PM
To : David Bergan
Subject : Re: Old Testament inspiration
David,
Wow. Not sure what to say. I'd love to talk with you in person to avoid any unfair judgments. But in my opinion, your response shows that you are able and willing to reason yourself out of any possible commitment to the authority of Scripture. You first reasoned that we shouldn't take 2 Tim 3:16 literally; then you reasoned why, if we did take it literally, it wouldn't accord with your personal standards of what is "useful." I'm not sure what exactly you want me to do at this point in the conversation. I want to help you, but you need to make clear to me what you are hoping for.
I'm also not clear on why you're willing to adopt a different standard for "the words of Christ in particular" than for other parts of the Bible; but if that's really your perspective, perhaps you should consider that Christ himself considered the Noah story to be factual (Matt 24:37-39). That might provide a starting point for you to reason from.
I feel like we're back to where we started... which was my assertion that the standard of "reason" is not really any standard at all. And this renews my question from last time: when your "reasonable" judgments and someone else's disagree, how do you resolve the difference? I believe it's very reasonable to hold to the inspiration of the OT; you don't. So far the way you've resolved the difference is to apply the standard of your own reason... and you can see how that is circular, which was my point from the beginning.
But, assuming I'm willing to work from your presuppositions, what do you see to be the burden of proof? What could I do to demonstrate, according to your standards of reason, that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God?
With humility,
Bob
