“To take John’s use of the Greek word logos…”

- I mean, of course, the author of John’s Gospel’s use of the word logos in his Gospel. Not John Ahern’s use of the word.

In his next point, John argues that if we are to believe that scriptural is inspired, we must believe that it is infallible. “It is a logical necessity that it be free of error and inconsistency if it is indeed inspired by God.” Instead of even considering alternative definitions of the doctrine of inspiration or considering forms of Christianity other than his own, he holds onto his own definition with a death grip, and irrelevantly insists that (according to his form of the doctrine), fallibility is illogical. If he had been willing to argue against- or even mention- prominent Christians who believe in inspiration but not infallibility (eg. Karl Barth, N.T. Wright), I would not be forced to believe that he is, again, merely defending the internal logic of his own flavor of Christianity. If he is not merely interested in preserving the logic of his understanding of Christianity, then why can he not even bring up other understandings? Why does he insist that scriptural fallibility is illogical according to his assumptions, and leave it at that?

These are John’s two main points before he mentions that he believes Phil understands infallibility perfectly, and goes on to address to canonicity and corruptibility. So these are his two principal objections to the idea of scriptural fallibility: it creates chaos, and it is illogical according to his assumptions. I think I’m justified in saying that his principal aim is to preserve the internal logic of his form of Christianity.

You go on to point out, “John never said that the canon of scripture is infallible.” Agreed. Upon re-reading, I realize I was attacking an error that was my own fantasy. Apologies.

Your next point makes nearly no sense to me at all. You say, “God-Breathed always means infallible (not just some of the time), and it points back to John’s syllogism (at the end of his 7th paragraph).” Why does God-Breathed always mean infallible? Am I missing something? You also completely ignore my point that the Timothy quote only refers to the Old Testament scriptures that Timothy was familiar with, not the scriptures as we understand them today. You then quote another passage, II Peter 1:20-21, ““No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” But ostensibly, this again does not refer to any of the New Testament, and only to the *prophecies* of the Old Testament, which is a gigantic minority. Most of the Bible is not prophecy at all, so the quote is somewhat irrelevant.

Your points on Judas’ death are well-taken. I still think they are probably two contradictory stories, but I understand that there is a certain amount of room for disagreement.

I’m still puzzled as to why John would place a choice before the reader if he didn’t mean it to be understood as a choice. I’d like to hear from John exactly what he meant. And finally this idea that “God *is* Logic” seems to me to have no basis, scriptural or otherwise. To take John’s use of the Greek word logos- which has a slippery meaning at best, but had certain connotations in Greek philosophy- and to equate that usage with the rather concrete English meaning of “Logic” seems completely and utterly unjustifiable.

N.B. No worries about typos. I certainly won’t call you on something that trivial. I think I made several myself in my first reply and I appreciate your jumping over them.

In my paragraph regarding canonicity, the sentence “The Canon was never asserted to be fallible in the first place” SHOULD read:

The Canon was never asserted to be INfallible in the first place.”

“Your principal aim in all this is to preserve the internal logic of your form of Christianity.”

Upon careful reflection, can you really say this? Where, specifically, does John assert the primacy of “internal logic” over all else? His first substantive words are a quote from scripture: “Take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” who is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” The clear thesis, and the one I think John intended, is that scripture is the God-breathed, inspired Word of God, and that because of that, arguing for scriptural infallibility both undermines the Gospel and is illogical. Nowhere in John’s note is there evidence that his “principal” aim is simple preservation of a kind of logic. John uses logic; he does not exalt it as an End (unless, of course, we use “logic” to mean “God” according to John 1:1, which is correct, but not as you used the word here).

Second, you say to John:

“You not only affirm that [canonicity's] infallibility *can* be displaced, but that we may put faith that God’s hand has guarded the councils of men that decided the canon.”

John never said that the canon of scripture is infallible. In fact, he said the exact opposite: “Protestants admit that the canon itself is fallible.” According to this view (which it seems both the Protestants and John adopt, and certainly the view you’re referencing), the Canon wasn’t once infallible and is now (as you say) “displaced” into fallibility. The Canon was never asserted to be fallible in the first place. So to tell John that he affirms that the canon’s “infallibility *can* be displaced” misses the point entirely, and it certainly does not create a contradiction in John’s argument where he originally said “infallibility can never be displaced, only relocated.” As John stated without confusion, scripture is what is infallible. The canon is what is fallible. Each have always been this way without any switching around.

Further, in reference to John’s discussion of II Tim. 3:16, you counter:

“Inspired does not mean infallible. An inspired author can still make factual mistakes without our haing to say that God lied.”

Although you did not address it, John speaks directly to the discrepancy between the original text (which he argues is infallible) and subsequent translations (which he argues are fallible). I agree that “inspired” does not indicate “infallible.” But in this case it does, though a translation more faithful to the original is “God-breathed.” The Greek word for this is “theopneustos” and its meaning is easily apparent: “theo” means God, and “pneustos” means “breath.” God-Breathed always means infallible (not just some of the time), and it points back to John’s syllogism (at the end of his 7th paragraph). Additionally, II Peter 1:20-21 corroborates this: “No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” This scriptural corroboration also corroborates John’s statement that “the Bible must be interpreted with all other Biblical passages in the balance.”

The discussion of Judas’ death is difficult, because unless we argue from the words of the original text, we invite arguments and counterarguments with no resolution. Further, transcription (copyist) errors are possible, so that a *copy* of the original Greek in Acts says “prenes genomenos” (“becoming headlong”, which implies hanging) where perhaps (though not necessarily) it should say “presthes genomenos” (“becoming swollen,” like a corpse does after it dies in any number of ways, not necessarily hanging). I recommend this page (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html) for a close look at this discrepancy between Acts and Matthew. While it may not provide resolution, it illustrates the importance of a close look at the original text. It also illustrates the importance (noted also by John) of realizing that scripture “is interpreted by sometimes arbitrary, but always human and fallible men.”

Finally, you claim John says (though you do not quote him as saying):

“It would be better if the Bible were infallible . . . and that we should therefore believe it.”

No. That is not his logic. I’m sure John agrees that its better if the Bible is infallible, but that is not the basis of his logic. The basis of his logic is Scripture, the fact that God *is* Logic, and that infallibility does not make logical sense. As such, John would agree with you that he will also not “believe the sky is yellow just because [he] would ‘rather have’ it that way, or because it somehow makes the universe better.” His “rather have” was simply (and rather clearly) to illustrate his point. “Rather haves” and “somehows” are decidedly not the basis of his arguments.

“Provided Scripture is no longer infallible, the individual becomes the decider of what gets included and what gets excluded. Or maybe a council of men will decide it. But this is naïve. Infallibility can never be displaced, only relocated.”

So you say. Yet when the issue of canonicity comes up, you not only affirm that *its* infallibility *can* be displaced, but that we may put faith that God’s hand has guarded the councils of men that decided the canon.

“Protestants admit that the canon itself is fallible, i.e. a fallible set of infallible books. How then can we know with infallible certainty which books are infallible? We can’t. But we have faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the councils that decided the canon of Scripture.”

Obviously you believe that sometimes infallibility can be displaced, and sometimes we can trust councils of men… this begs the question: when?

You go on to claim that your belief in infallibility is supported by the classic Timothy passage, II Tim. 3:16. First of all, Timothy’s intent was obviously to refer to his “canon” (though I think the idea and the “necessity” of a real canon came much much later in church history) of the Old Testament. The “Bible” wasn’t around. Second, inspired does not mean infallible. According to my thinking, an inspired author can still make factual mistakes without our having to say that God lied, or anything like that. Apparently, according to your thinking, an inspired author cannot. But please, show me why your view is provably superior to mine.

You talk about inconsistencies in the Bible, claiming that they aren’t there, and you talk specifically about the death of Judas.

“He alluded to the two deaths of Judas, which I’ll clear up quickly. Matthew 27:5 says Judas hanged himself. Acts 1:18 says he fell and his body burst open. I fail to see the contradiction.”

Acts actually says that he fell “headlong”- impossible to do if you’ve been hanging by your neck, unless your head is the size (and weight) of a boulder. Matthew says that the field was called “The Field of Blood” because it was bought after Judas’ death by the priests with the money Judas was given for betraying Jesus. But Acts says that Judas bought the field himself, and that the field was called “The Field of Blood” because he got his guts all over it. How is that not a contradiction?

Finally, you close your argument with a question: “But which would you rather have – a world with one despot of a book or a world with millions of little despots?”

You seem to be saying that we have a choice about which view to believe (I agree), and that it would be better if the Bible were infallible (I’m undecided), and that because it would be better, we should therefore believe it. I disagree vehemently. I’m not going to believe the sky is yellow just because I would “rather have” it that way, or because it somehow makes the universe better.