Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of $20 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Johan
Johan
South Africa
Posts: 326
Joined: October 2006
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,694
Posts51,472
Members930
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,526
Tom 3,545
chestnutmare 2,920
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,771
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 24
Pilgrim 16
Susan 4
John_C 3
Johan 2
grit 1
Recent Posts
Agree or Disagree and Why?
by Tom. Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:09 PM
Ever heard of Michael Heiser
by Tom. Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:02 PM
ADHD
by Tom. Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:47 AM
Quoting Scripture a Comfort?
by Tom. Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:53 PM
Looking for information
by Tom. Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:51 AM
"ites"
by Johan. Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:50 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Scripture Inherency #50917
Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:30 AM
Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:30 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,545
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,545
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
I just finished reading an article by someone who believes (as I do) that the Scriptures are inherent. Yet he also says that it is wrong to believe that this is an essential view of the faith.
You can read that article at: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/20...pid-statements/
Although I certainly can understand where the author of the article is coming from, I find myself disagreeing with him on this point. In fact if I understand passages such as 2 Tim. 3:14-16, they actually claim Scripture to be inherent.
The author makes the statement that it is stupid to say that if the Bible is not inherent, then Christianity is false. Yet seeing how the Bible claims to be inherent, then if it isn’t then logically seeing how Christianity is based on God’s Word; wouldn’t this be a contradiction if indeed it wasn’t inherent?
Tom

Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: Tom] #50918
Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:41 AM
Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:41 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Tom,

1. Methinks you mean INERRANT (without error, incapable of being wrong), rather than INHERENT (existing in something as a permanent, essential). You could say, however, that Scripture being divinely inspired is inherently inerrant. grin

2. Contrary to what this author writes, it is not "stupid to say that if the Bible is not [inerrant], then Christianity is false.", for if the Bible is 'God-breathed', then it must de facto be inerrant. And more salient to his statement, if the Bible is not inerrant, then it would be impossible to know truth and thus there could be no Christianity. Therefore, it is utterly brainless, illogical and even irrational to assert that it is 'stupid to say...'

This is just another expression of the modern fad to circumvent the biblical doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration in order to escape its teachings and their application. In short, it is a form of idolatry... creating a god and a religion after their own imagination. igiveup


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: Pilgrim] #50919
Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:14 AM
Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:14 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,771
Mississippi Gulf Coast
John_C Offline

Permanent Resident
John_C  Offline

Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,771
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Jeff,

I agree with you totally on this, but would you speak on the doctrine of inerrancy coming late into the game. I think I read where inerrancy did not become a doctrine until early in the 20th century. That is not to say, as some claim, that earlier believers did not affirm inerrancy, but that it was probably assume.

Thanks for your input.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: Tom] #50920
Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:36 AM
Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:36 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 983
Florida
R
Robin Offline
The Boy Wonder
Robin  Offline
The Boy Wonder
R
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 983
Florida
More recent battles in a few Protestant denominations aren't so much about the inerrancy of scripture, but about the sufficiency of scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: Pilgrim] #50921
Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:35 AM
Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:35 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,545
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,545
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Pilgrim
Thank you for pointing out my error. Kind of ironic, I actually thought of that angle of how we as humans can error, but for God to error would be making God less than perfect.7 giggle
Not sure I would go as far as you in saying that the author has created a God of his own imagination. Seeing he said that he believes in Scripture inerrancy. I just don't think he has thought through all the ramifications of the doctrine.
Though, that is only speculation on my part.

Tom

Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: Tom] #50922
Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:40 PM
Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:40 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
My comment re: idolatry is the logical end of someone who rejects the biblical doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration. Why? Because if Scripture is errant i.e., it contains error, then it is virtually impossible to know truth. And, if truth is unknownable, then how can someone know for certain who God is? scratch1 Therefore, all that one is left with is speculation based upon the arbitrary receiving and rejecting of particular texts concerning the person and nature of God resulting in a god of one's own liking, aka: idolatry.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: Robin] #50923
Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:54 PM
Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:54 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
[b][/b]
Originally Posted By: Robin
More recent battles in a few Protestant denominations aren't so much about the Inerrancy of scripture, but about the sufficiency of scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Can you give one or more examples? I am guessing that what you are suggesting; inerrancy vs. sufficiency amounts to the same thing, e.g., Peter Enns' heretical view of Scripture. For me personally, the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration isn't limited to just the question of inerrancy but includes sufficiency, which is how the framers of the WCF expressed it in Chapter I:

Quote:
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: John_C] #50924
Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:59 PM
Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:59 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Originally Posted By: John_C
Jeff,

I agree with you totally on this, but would you speak on the doctrine of inerrancy coming late into the game. I think I read where inerrancy did not become a doctrine until early in the 20th century. That is not to say, as some claim, that earlier believers did not affirm inerrancy, but that it was probably assume.

Thanks for your input.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Augustine used the phrase "inerrant" back in the 4th century.

Here's a good article on that subject: The Truthfulness of Scripture - Inerrancy.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: Pilgrim] #50925
Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:57 PM
Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 983
Florida
R
Robin Offline
The Boy Wonder
Robin  Offline
The Boy Wonder
R
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 983
Florida
The whole cessationist argument is based on the sufficiency of scripture. Those who believe in other forms of special revelation - who also resist stoning when they prophecy falsely - would argue that since the Holy Spirit was to be given with dreams, visions, prophecies etc "in the last days (Joel 2:28)," that the "last" days couldn't have ended in the first century, or they wouldn't be last days.

Reformed folk - well, some of us, at least - argue that Joel's prophecy had to do with the last days of the old covenant, and that the signs were covenant signs of the close of that covenant...

Does that answer your question, Pilgrim? Not sure what you were asking.

Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: Robin] #50926
Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:53 PM
Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:53 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Sure... just wanted some example(s) so I was clear on what you wrote. grin

From that perspective, true it is that some will at least give lipservice to inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy but charge that Scripture is insufficient in and of itself for NT Christians. Of course, we both know that Scripture itself testifies to its own complete sufficiency in all matters of faith and practice.

And quickly, I am one of those who hold that the events at Pentecost in Acts 2 and following were a fulfillment of OT prophesy that ushered in the new covenant with a new spirituality and a new univerality. But unlike many, being a 'soft' cessationist, I hold that all the ecstatic gifts were given temporarily for the main purpose of emphasizing that the new covenant Church was to be comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, i.e., to build the initial foundation upon the Rock after which they were no longer needed and thus taken away.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: Pilgrim] #50931
Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:57 AM
Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:57 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,545
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,545
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Pilgrim

I think I understand your point and agree with you.
Yet the author indicated that he does agree with verbal plenary inspiration (please correct me if I am wrong). Isn’t saying that the Scripture’s are inerrant, agreeing with verbal plenary inspiration?
If that is the case, I think he doesn't understand all the ramifications of the doctrine. Which is why he could say the things he did.
I just reread the article and there is a section in the article which I must strongly disagree with.
Quote:
Most of you know that I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. I call my view “reasoned” inerrancy which does not suppose a particular wooden hermeneutic to be tied to it. (You can read more about it here).
Having said this, I believe that this doctrine, while important, is not the article upon which Christianity stands or falls. I believe that the Scriptures could contain error and the Christian faith remain essentially in tact. Why? Because Christianity is not built upon the inerrancy of Scripture, but the historical Advent of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christ became man, lived a perfect life, died an atoning death, and rose on the third day not because the Scriptures inerrantly say that these events occurred, but because they did, in fact, occur. The truth is in the objectivity of the event, not the accuracy of the record of the event. The cause and effect must be put into proper place here. The historical event of the incarnation caused the recording of Scripture, Scripture was not the cause of the events. Again, Christianity is founded upon the Advent, not the inerrant record of the Advent.

The problem with his reasoning is although he has it correct these event indeed did occur. If indeed the Scriptures contain error, seeing how the Scriptures are God’s Word and God is perfect and seeing how the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture through human authors. If there was error in them, it would be saying that the Holy Spirit made mistakes.
Therefore, despite his claim that the accuracy of the recorded event isn’t what is important. It certainly is because it is God not man that wrote the recorded event.
It does puzzle me that he doesn’t see this, especially after saying that he believes in the doctrine of inerrancy.
Reading the article a little further on, he makes his argument to support Scripture the same way historians would support the writing of Josephus and Polybius. He says everyone agrees with their writings as “generally reliable, but not inerrant”. So error, in Scripture would prove the same thing.
My question is, how can someone who says they believe the Scriptures are inerrant, which has the connotation that the author is perfect; use this kind of reasoning? He is comparing apples to oranges.
Am I missing something here?

Tom

Re: Scripture Inerrancy [Re: Tom] #50932
Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:11 AM
Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:11 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
Pilgrim

I think I understand your point and agree with you.
Yet the author indicated that he does agree with verbal plenary inspiration (please correct me if I am wrong). Isn’t saying that the Scripture’s are inerrant, agreeing with verbal plenary inspiration?
If that is the case, I think he doesn't understand all the ramifications of the doctrine. Which is why he could say the things he did.

Tom

The problem is his view is self-contradictory and illogical. He wants to affirm the physical coming of Christ into this world and that He made atonement for sin so that salvation was secured [I obviously have no idea what his doctrine of soteriology is so I don't want to accredit him with something he doesn't believe.]

HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT? The only source that reveals the details of who God is, e.g., Trinitarian, the Fall of mankind, the sending of the second person of the Trinity to take upon Himself human flesh, live a perfectly holy life according to the law of God, offer a vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross, be buried and then rise from the dead, etc., etc. is the BIBLE. If the Bible contains errors, regardless of the authorship of it, then there is no assurance that ANYTHING in the Bible is factual and therefore reliable. Either the Scriptures are the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant written Word of God or they are nothing more than another book of random religious writings that mean nothing to anyone other than those who personally revere them as something special, aka: idolatry.

You cannot have a religion of truth if truth is allusive and only partial. If the Bible is errant, how does he know what is true and what is false? It's the identical problem the Liberals have always had when for whatever reason they reject the divine inspiration of Scripture, e.g., Rudolph Bultmann demythologized the Bible by denying supernaturalism, relegating anything that was supernatural, e.g., miracles, etc. as pure 'myth'. Karl Barth taught that the Bible is not the written divinely inspired Word of God, but it only contains the word of God which becomes the Word of God during a religious experience. There are countless views that deny all that Divine Inspiration entails, but they all have one thing in common... There is no way to determine absolute truth, and thus it falls upon each individual to determine what is true for them.

So, this man is lost in a sea of confusion in regard to the identity and nature of the Bible. And, you can be sure that the reason he has fabricated this view is that there he has a rejection of something Scripture teaches and/or an attempt to mix worldly philosophy with Christianity... or perhaps some other nonsensical reason. shrug

Once again, you cannot believe anything for certain if everything is subject to error. Believing falsehood serves no purpose other than to display one's total stupidity. wink


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
A response From the Author [Re: Pilgrim] #50934
Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:44 PM
Sat Sep 06, 2014 10:44 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,545
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,545
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
As I sometimes do, I write a response to the article's author to tell them my concerns with their article.
I did just that in this particular case and just received a response and thought those who have participated on this thread would like to read what he said to me.

Quote:
I think you've missed the point. You failed to see the main argument. Again, even if there were no scriptures at all Christianity would still be true. Think of the earliest church, they had no Scriptures at least only portions of the maybe. The testimony of the gospel was by word-of-mouth. Therefore, at this time even without the Scriptures Christianity was proclaimed them people believed based on the historical reality of the advent of Christ.

We need to keep from getting the cart before the horse. The Scriptures testify to the historic reality of the Gospel. Though I believe they are at are in errant, they don't even have to exist for Christianity to be true.

And remember, I historic event does not have to have an inerrant testimony for us to be obligated to believe it. Otherwise, there would be no historical reality outside of the testimony of scriptures that we are obligated to believe. This would include the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the discovery of America, and many many other historic events.

In the end, my argument is that people have no rights to leave the faith based upon their assumption that there may be an error or two in the scripture. And for us as Christians to give the impression that this is the case, distorts the Gospel by making the Scriptures the center of the gospel rather than the historic reality of what Christ did and who he was.

I hope that makes sense, my friend.


Tom

Re: A response From the Author [Re: Tom] #50935
Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:54 AM
Sun Sep 07, 2014 8:54 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
So Tom, what do you think about his response? What is your analysis of what he wrote? scratchchin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: A response From the Author [Re: Pilgrim] #50936
Sun Sep 07, 2014 7:17 PM
Sun Sep 07, 2014 7:17 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,545
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,545
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
laugh
Though I have not had a lot of time to think about it yet (that isn't always a good idea for me giggle ) I can't help but think that he is still missing the forest through the trees.
You cannot divorce the work of the Lord from the Scriptures.
I could use his own reasoning against him by saying it the opposite way he uses his analogy.
Rather than focus on the events themselves, if we take Scripture and all that it claims, particularly it claiming to be God breathed. If it contains error, it isn't God breathed because God is perfect and unlike us, He does not make mistakes.
So in that manner, not only the work of our Lord as shown by history; but also the very Scriptures that proclaim His work are of equal importance.
I would like to think about his mentioning the oral message before it was recorded a little more though.

Is that the way you would think about his response to me?

Tom

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 27 guests, and 118 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
SnydersSoapbox, Susan, reformedbygrace, ReformedDisciple, Micki Bowman
930 Registered Users
Shout Box
October
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
825,503 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.055s Queries: 16 (0.002s) Memory: 2.9981 MB (Peak: 3.3137 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-10-17 16:43:29 UTC