Inerrancy

[sodzei]

You can't actually prove or disprove the doctrine of inerrancy in the originals. They don't exist anymore.

If someone claims that there is a contradiction, the inerrantist could claim that somewhere along the line, the Scripture was altered.

 

[CompassionFlower]

What is inerrancy? The diety of Christ, how one looks at the trinity?

Sorry,

Arianism, a Trinitarian doctrine promoted by Arius, denied the divinity of Christ and focused on the dissimilarity between the Father and the Son. The Son had a beginning unlike the eternal Father who always existed. Therefore, the Son was subordinate to the Father; he earned his rank from participation in grace or adoption by God.

Just take the word trinitarian out of there and you have exactly what a Jehovah Witness believes about the Father and the Son.

The more research I do on the Arianism the more closely they are to the JW thinking. In fact, I know others who were JW's have taken up with the Arianism thinking.

Around 320 CE, Arius' beliefs were questioned by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Later, Arius was excommunicated by the entire Egyptian episcopate. Athanasius, successor to Bishop Alexander, also protested against Arianism. Despite these set backs, Arius gained support from Esebius of Caesarea and Eusbius of Nicomedia during his travels to Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. The Arian controversy let to a serious division between the East and West. The Emperor Constantin succeeded in suppressing Arianism for a brief time by summoning the Council of Nicaea I (325). After Constantine, the popularity of Aranism rose again because of support from emperiors Constantius II 337-361 and Valens 364-378. After Valen's death, the threat of Arianism subsided with Theodosius, who summoned a coucil in Constantinople 381 that sealed the faith of Nicaea for all the Church.

Well back to researching Open Theists.

Sincerely, Pam

 

[CompassionFlower]

Dear Friends;

Sorry I hit the wrong button here and posted something here that was meant for another place on this MB. Sometimes things are a little different in this message board.

Sincerely, Pam

 

[Sularis]

Which of these passages are errant

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

Sularis,

My position still holds. Inerrancy is a theological presupposition, and not something that is inherent to the word itself. All of the passages that you quote are referring not to the Bible as you hold it, but to other things (Torah or preaching in the Christian community (1 Peter) or words of Jesus as they are passed on through writings, i.e. Matthew didn't think he was writing scripture). I think Paul of Eugene and Joshua have it. Everything that an inerrantist says about scripture is predetermined by how they see the Bible inspired and has very little to do with what God seems to have actually done.

The scriptures are not the Word of God without God's illumination of the reader. The Scriptures are only a witness to the actual Word of God, and can never replace Him. I really think that what many inerrantists are doing is idolatrous--biblolatry.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[Jeff Weaver]

Danny

I know you fumble around in the history forum, but didn't see your comment on this one:

Originally posted by Solly:
See this Barthian statement from one of our chief men in the 1940s:

Inspiration is not inherent in the inspired words...The Holy Spirit who produced the written word of God must, by his vital power, renew and enlighten the eye's of men's understanding. It then becomes the Word of God to them.
J H Gosden, "What Gospel Standard Baptists Believe."

Is this something you are driving at? It would seem to me, but I don't want to read too much into your statement.

Jeff.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
1. The scriptures are not the Word of God without God's illumination of the reader.

2. The Scriptures are only a witness to the actual Word of God, and can never replace Him.

3. I really think that what many inerrantists are doing is idolatrous--biblolatry.

___


1. Is this Daniel or Karl Barth?

2. Could you please prove this?

3. This statement will win you points with the CBF and other meaningless groups but not in an actual theological position. All Christians believe in inerrancy.

I don't know how many times I have had to do this but:

Jesus affirmed the historical accuracy of the O.T. He quoted it with authority and frequently told us who the author definitely was (Moses, David, Isaiah, etc). Libs cannot stand this. Either Jesus lied (and thus not worthy of worship) or was seriously confused (and thus not worthy of worship) or was precisely correct.

Jesus told the Sadduccees that their problem was with the authority of Scripture and not with him. Modern day liberals are just modern day sadduccees.

Paul affirmed the inerrancy of the O.T. when he said that all Scripture is God-breathed. Now, he also had in mind those writings that had been written before him. For example, at least 2 and possibly 3 of the gospels were written, Acts, James, all of Paul's other letters, 1 Peter, and possibly Jude and Hebrews.

The only books that were not covered were John, 1st 2nd & 3rd John, Revelation, 2 Peter (depending on when Peter died).

So, Paul's statement covered the O.T. and most of the N.T.

Peter said that Paul's writings were Scripture.

John said that he was writing letters to 7 churches. He clearly named himself as the author. Then, right away he said, "Hear what the Spirit says to the church in..." So, John is the author but it is the words of the Spirit. Hmmm. He knew he was penning Scripture. Here is my favorite part: at the end he says that if anyone adds or takes away from this BOOK, he will be cursed by God. At the beginning of Revelation he said that he was writing a letter. Then at the end he said it was a book. He knew he was penning the final letter that would complete the book.

There is more, but this is all just so basic.

 

[rufus]

Daniel Dunivan, you have fallen into theological existentialism!!

The Words of the Bible are God's Word whether illumined to your mind or not.

As great as Barth, Brunner and their clan were in some ways, they surly missed the mark on their view of Scripture.

I'm sorry, I'll just believe the inerrant Word of God which has proved itself over and over.

Inerrancy is based on inspiration is based on God's revelation is based on God who cannot lie!!

Rufus

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
1. The scriptures are not the Word of God without God's illumination of the reader.

2. The Scriptures are only a witness to the actual Word of God, and can never replace Him.

3. I really think that what many inerrantists are doing is idolatrous--biblolatry.

___


1. Is this Daniel or Karl Barth? </font>[/QUOTE]I think Barth has died, so it must be Daniel.

2. Could you please prove this?

Jesus is the Word of God (notice the capitals) – See John 1 for the context. The scripture does not replace Jesus. This is a fundamental concept for Christians.

3. This statement will win you points with the CBF and other meaningless groups but not in an actual theological position.

Do only moderators have permission to consistently slam other groups without consequences, or can I join in? Should I start saying “Southern Baptists and other meaningless groups” in many of my posts? Is this how intelligent people are supposed to dialogue?

All Christians believe in inerrancy.

It is pretty obvious that they don’t. All Christians accept the written scriptures, but not all of them accept a theory of inerrancy.

 

[Jim1999]

God's word remains true, even when it records falsehoods. There was a time when Israel failed to follow God's teaching,,,they stumbled,,they fell,,they went into idolotry and they even created laws.......all recorded in God's word, but not the intent of God, according to the whole teaching of the Book.

I for one, will remain firm in the understanding that God's word is God's word whether I believe it or not. Even with the errant copies currently in our possession, there is sufficient evidence pointing us to the true God and to Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
1. Is this Daniel or Karl Barth?

It certainly seems influenced by Barth, which I would think conservative Christians would consider a good thing.

Joshua

 

[Jim1999]

Barthianism was one of the great deceivers of all time. He frocked his doctrines in evangelical, fundamental phraseology and fooled a lot of people, included Fuller Seminary for a period of time. Thankfully they saw the truth and moved along.

Barth traded the objective scriptures for subjectivism.the same error made by the poet Milton and some others. Feeling can never replace the objective word. The word remains the word whether I feel (so-called Holy Spirit injectives)it is the word or not.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Jim,

I (unsurprisingly) strongly disagree. Barth built a strong and sturdy bridge between orthodox Christian faith (which is a matter of belief, not logic) and responsible, intellectually honest Christian scholarship. I see no deception in Barth's writings; just an honest attempt to reconcile what he knew with what he believed.

Joshua

 

[Jim1999]

Joshua, In relation to the rationalism prevelant in German theology at the time, and out of the teachings of Schleiermacher, that is very well true. Barth was making an honest, scholarly attempt to climb above rationalism, but he missed the mark and missed fundamental theology (nothing to do with fundamentalism). His commentary on Romans remains a great work because of the lingual couching. This is not unusual of any of the, what we call,German theologians of the period.

Many in our time moved into neo-evangelicalism, and this is what has caused so much lethargy in the modern pew.

I am quite familiar with Barth and with Schleiermacher and their philosophies and the German theological development and its influence on the liberal and conservative branches in the Americas....the USA and Canada....as well as in the UK.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Jim,

I realize that your expertise as a theologian supercedes mine. I am a product of the second generation of scholars and theologians to carry on the torch of German scholarship (and unlike many of my peers I still have a weakness for Tubingen and its products). Consequently, I certainly have a bias here.

Where we differ, I believe, is not in understanding what Barth and his contemporaries did, but rather in what the result was. I believe that he clarified the essential heart of Christianity. You seem to think he missed the point of Christianity entirely.

Even if that were the case, I see nothing deceptive in the attempt (just as I don't think most inerrantists are intentionally deceptive). Barth's Christian heart is evident in his writings and in the honest way in which he wrestled with the dilemmas most bright, educated people of faith must face.

Joshua

[ February 08, 2003, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

True, I am heavily influenced by neo-orthodox thought. But even if one can't totally accept the theology of Barth and others in the movement (which I don't), what he attempts is exactly what the present situation requires, i.e. making the center of Christian faith Christ, as he is witnessed in the scriptures, within the locus of the church--all of this without falling backward into a pre-enlightenment view of the theological enterprise. Scientific skeptism does not solve the problem that theology and the Bible itself face. To retreat into "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," is cowardly at best and irrelevant at worst.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[sodzei]

To retreat into "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," is cowardly at best and irrelevant at worst.

Yes, but you must have faith in the Bible in order to make Christ the center of the faith. Otherwise, you don't know who Christ is.

 

[go2church]

Yes, but you must have faith in the Bible in order to make Christ the center of the faith. Otherwise, you don't know who Christ is.

Very poor theological thinking
So what did the people of the NT times believe in, they didn't have the bible? So what was the center of their faith?

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

Do you ever think of a good raze a long time after the fact? I do.

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
...they were flawless because God himself oversaw and carried them along.

Is this Preach or a Muslim speaking about the Koran.

They believe the Word became book; we believe the Word became flesh.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[ruthigirl]

Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
Do you ever think of a good raze a long time after the fact? I do.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Preach the Word:
...they were flawless because God himself oversaw and carried them along.

Is this Preach or a Muslim speaking about the Koran.

They believe the Word became book; we believe the Word became flesh.

Grace and Peace, Danny </font>[/QUOTE]Saved people believe that the Bible is the perfect revelation of and about God himself.

Why don't you tell me what you know about God apart from the Bible?