The Domino Theory of Scripture

[Deadworm]

The Domino Theory of Scripture teaches that seekers face a stark choice: either they accept the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or they have no grounds for accepting the Bible and its Gospel as their authority for faith and life and as their guidebook to salvation. This position is based on the problem of the slippery slope: Fundamentalists argue that once one text is deemed erroneous (historically, scientifically, ethically, theologically, or as a contradiction of other biblical texts), this verdict calls into question the reliability of all biblical revelation, including its way of salvation. I know several honest intelligent believers who, faced with this stark choice, felt compelled by their integrity to renounce the authority of Scripture and their faith in its Gospel. These "apostates" include ex-Christians I know who were gloriously saved as young men. So here are the 5 questions for discussion on this thread:

(1) Is the insistence on an inerrantist view of Scripture essential enough to thereby unwittingly encourage honest dissenters to renounce their faith in biblical revelation and its Gospel?
(2) Why do Fundamentalists insist on biblical inerrancy when the Bible itself never claims to be inerrannt, not even in the vague claim that the OT is "god--breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)?"
(3) On what basis do Fundamentalists claim an inerrant NT, when the NT didn't even exist as a consensual canon of books until the 3rd century? [No, 2 Peter 3:15-16 does not refute this problem.]
(4) Jude cites the alleged supernatural revelation in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative and In 1 Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah with the same phrase ("It is written") that he uses to cite OT texts. So on what basis do Fundamentalists accept the Protestant OT canon (despite Josephus) as opposed to Paul's and Jude's apparently open-ended view of canonicity, the Septuagint, and the Catholic inclusion of the OT apocrypha?
(5) How is it intellectually honest for Fundamentalists to continue to cling to biblical inerrancy, when faced with clear examples of biblical errors for which they have no rational answer?

 

[Walpole]

The Domino Theory of Scripture teaches that seekers face a stark choice: either they accept the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or they have no grounds for accepting the Bible and its Gospel as their authority for faith and life and as their guidebook to salvation. This position is based on the problem of the slippery slope: Fundamentalists argue that once one text is deemed erroneous (historically, scientifically, ethically, theologically, or as a contradiction of other biblical texts), this verdict calls into question the reliability of all biblical revelation, including its way of salvation. I know several honest intelligent believers who, faced with this stark choice, felt compelled by their integrity to renounce the authority of Scripture and their faith in its Gospel. These "apostates" include ex-Christians I know who were gloriously saved as young men. So here are the 5 questions for discussion on this thread:

(1) Is the insistence on an inerrantist view of Scripture essential enough to thereby unwittingly encourage honest dissenters to renounce their faith in biblical revelation and its Gospel?
(2) Why do Fundamentalists insist on biblical inerrancy when the Bible itself never claims to be inerrannt, not even in the vague claim that the OT is "god--breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)?"
(3) On what basis do Fundamentalists claim an inerrant NT, when the NT didn't even exist as a consensual canon of books until the 3rd century? [No, 2 Peter 3:15-16 does not refute this problem.]
(4) Jude cites the alleged supernatural revelation in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative and In 1 Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah with the same phrase ("It is written") that he uses to cite OT texts. So on what basis do Fundamentalists accept the Protestant OT canon (despite Josephus) as opposed to Paul's and Jude's apparently open-ended view of canonicity, the Septuagint, and the Catholic inclusion of the OT apocrypha?
(5) How is it intellectually honest for Fundamentalists to continue to cling to biblical inerrancy, when faced with clear examples of biblical errors for which they have no rational answer?

Good post, especially in light of the fact that there is NO church in history which ever used a sixty-six book canon.

 

[37818]

(3) On what basis do Fundamentalists claim an inerrant NT, when the NT didn't even exist as a consensual canon of books until the 3rd century? [No, 2 Peter 3:15-16 does not refute this problem.]

All the Biblical texts were inerrant word of God upon being written, not when some group decided. What is not inerrant are any interpreters, translators or any copist variants. God and His word is inerrant. God is fully capable with His handed down word.

 

[37818]

(5) How is it intellectually honest for Fundamentalists to continue to cling to biblical inerrancy, when faced with clear examples of biblical errors for which they have no rational answer?

Read my reply #3.

 

[Revmitchell]

Inerrancy has nothing to do with copiest errors.

 

[37818]

Good post, especially in light of the fact that there is NO church in history which ever used a sixty-six book canon.

LOL. All of them have those 66 books.

 

[Deadworm]

37818: "All the Biblical texts were inerrant word of God upon being written, not when some group decided.
And that claim is based on what? Is the claim in principle verifiable--testable? If not, then it is philosophically meaningless.

37818: "What is not inerrant are any interpreters, translators or any copist variants."
If God didn't ensure that we have error-free copies of Scripture, why would you imagine that God ensured that we would have error-free original texts?

37818: "God and His word is inerrant. God is fully capable with His handed down word."
No Christian, Fundamentalist or Liberal, claims that God's Word is errant. What you are ducking is the issue of cultural bias and human error in hearing and transmitting God's Word.

 

[Walpole]

LOL. All of them have those 66 books.

LOL...There is no canon in all of Christian history which matches the Protestant sixty-six book canon.

 

[37818]

LOL...There is no canon in all of Christian history which matches the Protestant sixty-six book canon.

So which of the 66 books did any of those other canons omit?

 

[Deacon]

Canon Comparison [link]

 

[37818]

And that claim is based on what? Is the claim in principle verifiable--testable? If not, then it is philosophically meaningless.

The undisputed fact those 66 books were handed down from the 1st century churches.

If God didn't ensure that we have error-free copies of Scripture, why would you imagine that God ensured that we would have error-free original texts?

Oh, so you actually know what text was actually lost. How would you know such a thing?

No Christian, Fundamentalist or Liberal, claims that God's Word is errant. What you are ducking is the issue of cultural bias and human error in hearing and transmitting God's Word.

No Bible fundamentalist make any such claim about errors in the original text given by God.

 

[Walpole]

So which of the 66 books did any of those other canons omit?

LOL...Once again, there is no canon in all of Christian history which matches the Protestant sixty-six book canon. That means if you are using a sixty-six book canon, your canon is incomplete. You are using a novelty.

 

[Revmitchell]

Before responding anymore to this person yall might want to look up their username in the urban dictionary.

 

[Alofa Atu]

once one text is deemed erroneous (historically, scientifically, ethically, theologically, or as a contradiction of other biblical texts)

The inspired preserved word (Psalms 12:6-7) of God in English, the KJB (King James Bible), doesn't have any of those issues (John 10:35).

Doubters have for years tried, but they all broke themselves upon the Rock that is God's perfect word. The word of God is divinity combined with humanity, even as it is in Christ Jesus. To attempt to find error, contradiction, etc in it (KJB), is the same as the pharisees attempting to find it in Christ Jesus.

For instance:

The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible – Peter S Ruckman (IFB) (PDF)

See section:

The preserved word of God (Psalms 12:6-7) in the English language – The King James Bible (KJB) – AV1611 – Vindicated Files (PDF & Powerpoint):

 

[Walter]

LOL. All of them have those 66 books.

Show us historical proof that there were churches using ONLY 66 books before the Reformation

 

[Deadworm]

I don't mind and even fully expected my OP's points to be countered by these insults and mindless pontifications that fallaciously beg the question of very issues that my thread is intended to confront. What I want non-Baptist posters to see is how this evasion illustrates a twofold basic character flaw unwittingly promoted by the Domino Theory of Scripture [hereafter DT].

(1) The DT creates a character rigidity that prevents believers from provisionally suspending their doctrinal bias to breathe the fresh air of honest and open inquiry into the Truth. Concede one proven error in the Bible and they are plagued by a devastating faith crisis! This rigidity prevents Fundamentalists from being good listeners and from empathizing with honestly held alternative presuppositional frameworks. This character flaw is a major reason why honest intelligent seekers shun dialogue with Evangelicals that the Holy Spirit might otherwise use to bring them to Christ.

(2) Worse, DT places a higher premium on being right in their own eyes than on getting honest seekers saved. So Fundamentalists need to ask themselves whether they'd rather honest seekers recognize the merits of DT and reject Christ or become radiant Christians who revel in God's grace, but reject biblical inerrancy.

 

[Marooncat79]

The Domino Theory of Scripture teaches that seekers face a stark choice: either they accept the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or they have no grounds for accepting the Bible and its Gospel as their authority for faith and life and as their guidebook to salvation. This position is based on the problem of the slippery slope: Fundamentalists argue that once one text is deemed erroneous (historically, scientifically, ethically, theologically, or as a contradiction of other biblical texts), this verdict calls into question the reliability of all biblical revelation, including its way of salvation. I know several honest intelligent believers who, faced with this stark choice, felt compelled by their integrity to renounce the authority of Scripture and their faith in its Gospel. These "apostates" include ex-Christians I know who were gloriously saved as young men. So here are the 5 questions for discussion on this thread:

Not a Fundamentalist per say, but Ill take a stab at it and yes I know tha I am arguing with fools

(1) Is the insistence on an inerrantist view of Scripture essential enough to thereby unwittingly encourage honest dissenters to renounce their faith in biblical revelation and its Gospel?

Dont understand


(2) Why do Fundamentalists insist on biblical inerrancy when the Bible itself never claims to be inerrannt, not even in the vague claim that the OT is "god--breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)?"

There has to be some standard canon of faith. Man is inherently sinful so man cannot rule over scripture. Look at the testimony of scripture itsself.

Its an illogical argument that Scripture does not claim to be inerrant. Both Peter and Paul refer to each others writings as being inspired by God and trustworthy.

(3) On what basis do Fundamentalists claim an inerrant NT, when the NT didn't even exist as a consensual canon of books until the 3rd century? [No, 2 Peter 3:15-16 does not refute this problem.]

Not True. The canon was established no later than about 150 or so AD which is about 60 yrs or so after the death of the Apostle John.


(4) Jude cites the alleged supernatural revelation in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative and In 1 Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah with the same phrase ("It is written") that he uses to cite OT texts. So on what basis do Fundamentalists accept the Protestant OT canon (despite Josephus) as opposed to Paul's and Jude's apparently open-ended view of canonicity, the Septuagint, and the Catholic inclusion of the OT apocrypha?

So what? What is quoted from those extra biblical sources is onviously true or it would not be in the Bible. That does not mean everything in those extrabiblical sources is true or should be in the Bible.

The Early Church Fathers pronounced the Canon closed and said so. They even proclaimed that their writings were not inspired in the same way that the 27 of the NT.


(5) How is it intellectually honest for Fundamentalists to continue to cling to biblical inerrancy, when faced with clear examples of biblical errors for which they have no rational answer?

 

[JoeT]

The Domino Theory of Scripture teaches that seekers face a stark choice: either they accept the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or they have no grounds for accepting the Bible and its Gospel as their authority for faith and life and as their guidebook to salvation. This position is based on the problem of the slippery slope: Fundamentalists argue that once one text is deemed erroneous (historically, scientifically, ethically, theologically, or as a contradiction of other biblical texts), this verdict calls into question the reliability of all biblical revelation, including its way of salvation. I know several honest intelligent believers who, faced with this stark choice, felt compelled by their integrity to renounce the authority of Scripture and their faith in its Gospel. These "apostates" include ex-Christians I know who were gloriously saved as young men. So here are the 5 questions for discussion on this thread:

(1) Is the insistence on an inerrantist view of Scripture essential enough to thereby unwittingly encourage honest dissenters to renounce their faith in biblical revelation and its Gospel?
(2) Why do Fundamentalists insist on biblical inerrancy when the Bible itself never claims to be inerrannt, not even in the vague claim that the OT is "god--breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)?"
(3) On what basis do Fundamentalists claim an inerrant NT, when the NT didn't even exist as a consensual canon of books until the 3rd century? [No, 2 Peter 3:15-16 does not refute this problem.]
(4) Jude cites the alleged supernatural revelation in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative and In 1 Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah with the same phrase ("It is written") that he uses to cite OT texts. So on what basis do Fundamentalists accept the Protestant OT canon (despite Josephus) as opposed to Paul's and Jude's apparently open-ended view of canonicity, the Septuagint, and the Catholic inclusion of the OT apocrypha?
(5) How is it intellectually honest for Fundamentalists to continue to cling to biblical inerrancy, when faced with clear examples of biblical errors for which they have no rational answer?

I think some of the problem comes from knowing the source of Sacred Scripture, It comes out of "the living Tradition of the whole Church." Scripture is the witness of the Apostles for the authority of the Church. "But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written." [CCC 111]

JoeT

 

[Deadworm]

I think some of the problem comes from knowing the source of Sacred Scripture, It comes out of "the living Tradition of the whole Church." Scripture is the witness of the Apostles for the authority of the Church. "But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written." [CCC 111] JoeT

Biblical teaching is redemptive only if the same Holy Spirit that inspired the prophets and apostles inspires us with an inner witness that what we are reading is God's truth. But the work of the Spirit does not exempt us from the need to use common sense: "Come now, let us argue it out, says the Lord (Isaiah 1:18--NRSV)."
"Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands an accounting for the hope that is in you (1 Peter 3:15)."

Our lives and the lives of biblical authors may have been guided by the Spirit, but that does not mean that any believer is exempt from error. The inerrancy of God's Word is irrelevant to the prior question of whether the preconceptions, theological agendas, and cultural bias of biblical authors infect their role as transmitter's of God's Word with errors. That issue cannot be resolved without direct investigation of biblical texts to see whether they contain errors. As my so far unchallenged OP states, the NT cannot comment on its own inspiration simply because it didn't exist as a canonical collection until long after the NT era.

Paul feels the need to denounce Peter to his face for hypocritical conduct detrimental to Gospel truth (Galatians 2:12-13).
Luke acknowledges Paul's conviction that the Spirit wants him to bring the collection to Jerusalem (Acts 19:22), but still insists that Paul disobeyed the Spirit's guidance by making this trip: "Through the Spirit they ["the disciples" at Tyre] told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem (21:4)." Paul's disobedience of the Spirit may well explain why Luke refrains from reporting Paul's martyrdom in Rome and why Paul must now abandon his calling to preach the Gospel to the end of the known world, including Spain (Romans 15:23-29). My point is this: a divinely sanctioned calling does not exempt one from inevitable human error in discerning the Spirit's true leading. That's why any prophetic word must be subjected to the gift of discernment (1 Corinthians 14:29).

 

[37818]

LOL...Once again, there is no canon in all of Christian history which matches the Protestant sixty-six book canon. That means if you are using a sixty-six book canon, your canon is incomplete. You are using a novelty.

Which is it then? All 66 book were omited. Some of the 66 books were omited. All the 66 books were used with other books.