Theological Doublespeak

Mark, Mark, Mark, Jude wrote that the church contend sometimes for the faith. Even then, they should not contend in a manner in which the other side is perceived to be wrong. Don't you read your Bible, man?

 

Help me understand who it is you're talking about here...maybe my brain's just not working this morning. I have my own ideas, but by "Baptist Infidels," you don't mean the SBC, do you? </font>[/QUOTE]By "Baptist Infidels" I mean people who profess to be Baptists, preach in Baptist churches, teach in Baptist Sunday Schools, Colleges, and Universities, and yet are infidels in their religious philosophy and do not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Though the SBC has it's fair share of this sort, they do not officially condone it. To the contrary, in recent years they have made it clear, at least on the national level, that they will not tolerate these men in their institutions.

The point I am making is that now that a big money operation like the SBC has taken a definate inerracy position, those in Southern Baptist employment who formerly denied the idea of inerrancy will now use the term inerrancy, but redefine it to fit their real belief that the Bible is not true. This way they will be able to say "yes I believe in inerrancy" and thus gain employement in Southern Baptist institutions, while still, in reality, believing the Bible is errant.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]To only say scripture is inerrant is to not even come close to what scripture claims for itself. It claims in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 says "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

Heb 4:12 says, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Could we not say that the original manuscripts of Shakespeare are also inerrant using the same definition of inerrancy?

Scripture is so much more than the limit of being inerrant. God's word is powerful beyond our comprehension. It is trustworthy, etc. I can place my absolute trust in the same God who gave us his word.

I have seen those who would say they believe in inerrancy, lie, cheat, and steal too. But they don't believe the God of scripture. If I believe God, I also believe His word too.

 

Since there is always someone who needs to be fought, why should this be seen as unvirtuous?</font>[/QUOTE]Certainly we can always find someone with whom we disagree, but that doesn’t mean we necessarily have to fight them – especially if we haven’t given their side a fair hearing. It is counterproductive to the Kingdom of God to ignorantly fight another person. While you may win the debate (at least in a forum where the expression of opinions is regulated), you damage the reputation of the Kingdom and our Lord in the process.

Yes, we are called to contend for the faith. But we are also given other instructions:

Spiritually mature people know how to pick their battles and don’t act like a bull in a china shop when faced with other believers who understand things differently.

As Paul teaches, the church is the body of Christ and we are interdependent upon one another. Not only are we interdependent in terms of practical needs, but we also theologically interdependent. Because of differences in life experience, biblical knowledge and study, maturity, insight from the Holy Spirit, and education we understand things differently.

I don’t know for sure. I can’t judge the heart, motivations or intentions of another. But we can consider the actions and attitudes of other believers as evidence of their spiritual health, maturity and credibility:

- If all a person seems to do is fight with other Christians, then something is likely wrong with the person who is always in the fights – not necessarily the ones he is fighting. If we are members of the Body of Christ, we will not constantly be at war with other members of Christ.

- If a person assumes the worst of others, refusing to believe that those who disagree with them could possibly be sincere and honest in their dealings unless given specific evidence to the contrary, they have a spiritual problem.

- If a person makes blanket accusatory statements about others (for instance, alleging that only persons who unbelievers and dishonest would be members of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship or alleging that all Southern Baptists are bigots), they are very likely spiritually unhealthy.

- If a person spends almost all their time in a ‘ministry of condemnation’ instead of a “ministry of reconciliation”, they are almost certainly not living and ministering in the Spirit.

Does that make any sense?

 

If you are talking about how things are accomplished, that is one thing. There is no integrity where truth is denied though.</font>[/QUOTE]That’s true.

That’s false.

That’s making a blanket assumption of guilt that is obviously impossible for you to know. Therefore it is obvious that your statement is false. You statement lacks the integrity you claim that others lack.

Yep. Your statement is invalid.

 

Not at all.

Christians should contend for the faith in a way that is patient, forceful and represents integrity. Those with whom the church has to battle should be exposed to the truth.

(Or were you not being serious and instead trying to misrepresent my position?)

 

Wait a minute! Mark, are you saying that to be Baptist one must believe in inerrancy? If this is true, then the very first Baptist confessions aren't really Baptist. For they only specifically said that the Bible was infallable on matters of faith and ethics (not in history, science, etc.).

Also, how can something that is only possible as a countermovement to the "modernism" you often speak of be a requirement for being a Baptist, if you believe baptists were present before the modern era?

The identity of being baptist is tied to our belief in religious liberty and immersion of adult believers. Theological disagreements beyond that are a matters of interbaptist debates, and not signs for rejecting a group as non-baptist. Just because someone fails to live up to your lofty theology doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't your theological brother.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

If the other side is not wrong, then you should not be contending against them. If they are wrong, then by all means show publicly how they are wrong and protect the flock against them. To contend with showing the other side to be wrong is foolish fighting without a basis. Fights do not have to be ugly or unChristian. But to refuse to fight when doctrine and the truth is at stake is to disobey Scripture.

 

Mark and Larry, it was sarcasm.

 

Spiritually mature people know how to pick their battles and don’t act like a bull in a china shop when faced with other believers who understand things differently.
</font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Baptist Believer -- Preach it !

 

Actually, that power rests with God, Mark. Not you. Only He is the one who determines who your theological brother is. Stop trying to be the Almighty and let God be God.

 

Based on your words here it looks like you've made the dangerous assumption that those who do not embrace a theory of inerrancy do not believe the Bible to be truthful. While that accurately describes some people, this view fails to take into account that some people (like me) believe that "inerrancy" is a misplaced doctrinal emphasis and not biblically sound. I also believe the scripture is the written truth of God. Those views are not at all contradictory.

I'm not interested in debating inerrancy here, but I just wanted to point out that you are unintentionally excluding those who are brothers and sisters in Christ by making inerrancy a test of fellowship.

While you may not accept what I say, I do admire your apparent zeal to be faithful to God. We just understand things differently.

 

No, it actually means that what all baptists have in common only contains a very small set of beliefs. Inerracy is held by all kinds of fundamentalists, not just Baptist ones. What if I were to say that because I don't believe in the perserverance of the saints, then all that do are not baptists? I would be alienating a big part of those who can rightfuly be called baptist, both historically and theologically. Implicit in the small set mentioned above is that we recognize one another's authority to interpret the rest (Hint! Hint!).

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Jesus believed in the inerrancy of the Scripture.

KJV John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

HankD

 

That's not the same thing as the modern doctrine of inerrancy. The point Jesus makes is that the scriptures are trustworthy and express the communicative intentions of God.

Furthermore. a person can believe the Bible is fully trustworthy but not accept a theory of inerrancy because they believe that "inerrancy" is a misplaced emphasis --a rationalistic foundation for a pseudo-Christian religion that undermines biblical faith in Christ.

 

Scott,

God Almighty has commanded me to,

If denying the truthfulness of the Scriptures doesn't qualify as a doctrinal offence I don't know what would. Therefore, I judge anyone who denies the inerrancy of the Scriptures to be not a 32nd theological cousin of mine.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]"Mark them which cause division and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them."

This is exactly what you have done. You have distorted scripture.

If you ever led someone to Christ you would see the power of God's word first hand.

You are the divisive false teacher when you make claims that limit scripture way beyond what it speaks of itself. Inspiration covers much more than inerrancy. By limiting scripture to just inerrancy that is a severe doctrinal heresy that even scripture itself does claim that kind of lower limit. By saying that scripture in only inerrant is to keep it on the same plane as any other recorded document. Scripture is God's word not just an inerrant document.

Scripture does not claim to be inerrant it claims to be God's word not just an inerrant document.

Scripture claims in Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." That goes way beyond an inerrant document.

So why do you spend so much time beating a dead horse that is not true. Scripture makes claims for itself things that are far greater then being just an inerrant docuemnt. How about presenting the whole counsel of God on the subject. What you have done is to have taken a diamond and called a facet the diamond.

 

I am not sure this is sustainable under critical thought. To say that it cannot be broken probably speaks more closely of infallibility but inerrancy cannot be excluded from that. If there is a part that is not true, then is has been broken.

To say that it is trustworthy and expresses the communicative intentions of God is certainly not far from inerrancy, if a distinction can be made at all, and it is doubtful that it really can be. God intent was to communicate truth; he cannot lie. Therefore his communicative intentions cannot be less than inerrant.

Without fuller explanation this is questionable at best. How can something be "fully trustworthy" if it has an error? We would have to say that at least at the point of the error it is not trustworthy and if any of it is not trustworthy, then it cannot be fully trustworthy no matter what percentage of trustworthy it might be. Inerrancy is not a misplaced emphasis in the least. It is to defend Scripture at the point at which it is under attack. To attribute error to God breathed Scripture is to attribute error to God. It is to remove his quality as a true God.

 

RE: ...and the scripture cannot be broken.

I disagree.

in another statement Jesus applied it to the very jots and tittles of the original language.

To be sure the scribes made mistakes.
That has to do with the trustworthiness/reliability of the scribes and not God.

HankD