This is late in the game, but Chris Tilling’s latest post may be helpful:

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2009/04/negotiating-tensions-in-bible.html

TURD:

And I’ve seen more intelligent responses.

E,

Just a clarification:

J. I. Packer has a doctorate in theology from the University of Oxford. His thesis was entitled: “The redemption and restoration of Man in the thought of Richard Baxter.” He completed it in 1954.

(He does not have a doctorate in philosophy. He has a Doctor of Philosophy degree, which is usually abbreviated as Ph.D. but Oxford abbreviates it as D.Phil.)

Here’s the listing from the Oxford Libraries catalog:

Author Packer, J. I. (James Innell)
Title The redemption and restoration of Man in the thought of Richard Baxter / by James I. Packer.
Publisher 1954.
Description a-g, vi, 499 leaves ; 34 cm.
Notes Includes index of names.
Thesis (D.Phil.)–University of Oxford, 1954.
Bibliography: leaves 488-491.
Subjects Theological anthropology — Christianity
Redemption.
Salvation.
Personal Name as Subject Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691
Other Names University of Oxford. Faculty of Theology. Thesis.

E: “But that gets back to my first question – i.e., how valuable and meaningful is his endorsement to those who don’t unquestioningly share these views?”

I’ve seen more intelligent questions.

Let me ask you, “How valuable and meaningful are endorsements in general to those who don’t unquestioningly share the views of the endorser?”

Eg., President Obama endorses Planned Parenthood. How valuable and meaningful is his endorsement to pro-lifers?

Truth:

That’s a nice-sounding endorsement by Packer, but I’d like to ask what value it has except for those who already are committed to inerrancy?

J. I. Packer is a prolific and well-known Evangelical author, but he has neither a Masters nor a Doctorate in theology or Biblical studies or Patristics or Church History, AFAIK.

Also, since the doctrine of inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts, its defenders should, IMO, have rather extensive expertise in the original languages of Scripture. But there is no evidence that Dr. Packer (he has a doctorate in philosophy) is an expert in, or a fluent reader of, ancient Greek and Hebrew. (But perhaps he is.)

As a signer of The Chicago Statement and general editor of the ESV, he certainly has a horse in a couple of the races that Evangelicals are running (inerrancy and gender language). But that gets back to my first question – i.e., how valuable and meaningful is his endorsement to those who don’t unquestioningly share these views?

From a scholarly perspective, does his endorsement of Woodbridge’s book means much more than an endorsement by someone ike D. James Kennedy or Charles Colson?

An inerrant view of the bible quite often leads to a wooden, legalistic view of scripture wherein each line of scripture, or each book in the bible has an equal measure of value.

Also, many inerrancy advocates believe that if you DON’T have that view of scripture then you are lacking something necessary to faith.

Jesus +.

Jesus + your decision for Christ or
Jesus + a Pope or
Jesus + bishops ordained in historic succession or
Jesus + an inerrant Bible

We (many of us) believe in ‘Jesus alone’.

No pluses. No add on’s. No nothin’s…just the blood of Christ and His forgiveness of our sins.

TUAD, that is actually an easy one.

I have no problem with people believing that the Bible is factually, scientifically and historically inerrant. What I have a problem with is anyone (whether it be fundamentalist or atheist) saying that Scripture MUST be so, or it should not be trusted at all. I hear Christians all the time saying that the Bible can not have factual or scientific errors because, if it did, then it can not truly be the inspired Word of God. Thus, everyone who becomes convinced of this “if/then” absolutism will necessarily doubt Scripture if they come to be convinced of such errors. I believe this is a very, very great danger in the Christian world today.

Personally, I believe the Bible IS inerrant in that it infallibly presents the Message God intended, which is not undermined in the least, or becomes “in error” simply because the text was written at a time when history and science were not written about with strict literalness and where a person telling an account of Jesus’ life was less concerned with strict historical accuracy in the minute details than with getting Jesus’ message and the major events passed along.

“With courtesy and restraint Professor Woodbridge administers a series of knock-out blows to the confidently voiced claim that factual inerrancy is no authentic element in the historic Christian view of Scripture.”

Yes indeed. Much warm thanks to Dr. J.I. Packer and Dr. Woodbridge.

Vance: “TUAD, I think the point Steve is making is that the factual errors do not “bother him” at all.”

William Tanksley said it best: “But then I don’t understand your vehement objection to people who believe that the Bible is inerrant.”

Vance,

Thank you.

You said it much better than I.

– Steve