homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » "The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: "The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God.
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But even if you don't accept that, it's sure useful to rule out the situation you didn't describe where someone says

"The Bible says X but I believe reality is Y" where Y and X are mutually exclusive.

You mean it would prevent someone saying that the reality is that two of every species weren't confined in a small wooden boat for forty days? That outcome suggests that infallibility isn't a very useful tool if you want to keep a grip on reality.
Infallibility gently suggests to you, Pre-cambrian, that you should be open to the possibility that you are seeing reality wrong.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Addendum: Alternatively, it suggests that you are interpreting the words wrongly, and not understanding what they really mean.

Either possibility is available.

I fully admit, though, that proponents of infallibility are likely to come up with some terribly peculiar interpretations in an effort to make the infallible words and reality fit together. It can be wince-inducing.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't see why an acceptance of the infallibility of Scripture would need to produce wince-inducing peculiar interpretations. At least, I don't see why the interpretations of someone who believes in the infallibilty of Scripture would necessarily be more wince-inducing and peculiar than those of someone who doesn't believe Scripture is infallible.

Just to take the Noah's Ark story as an example already raised. It seems to me that an interpretation that says it's a mythical account (potentially based on an actual flood of limited extent, with a family of survivors and some livestock saved because they had access to a boat) included in Scripture to remind the people of Israel of the holiness of God and his urge to destroy sin coupled with his mercy to save - a truth that was repeatedly demonstrated as the people of Israel sinned and were punished in the wilderness and throughout the occupation of the Promised Land upto and beyond the Exile. And, a truth that's repeated in other myths in those early chapters of Scripture - Babel, Sodom and Gommorah etc.

Does that interpretation seem peculiar and wince-inducing? Because it's one that can be held perfectly reasonably by someone who accepts the infallibility of Scripture. The question is simply one of recognising the genre of any given passage.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But even if you don't accept that, it's sure useful to rule out the situation you didn't describe where someone says

"The Bible says X but I believe reality is Y" where Y and X are mutually exclusive.

I don't see that anybody on this thread is either doing or condoning that. I believe the name for this fallacy is "straw man".

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
God over rules the use of natural human thought processes so that the human writing faithfully communicates the divine. The concept of both human and divine without the one subsuming the other is hardly a novel concept to the Christian faith.

He just did it in such a way that we can't always be sure what He meant. At which point the "faithfully" comes under scrutiny.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And your remark about words of knowledge is utterly silly - which I think you know. The tongue doesn't go around forming words all on its own.

Except of course for glossalalia, at least for certain understandings of that phenomenon.

quote:
See. My. Sig.
Okay! Okay! We see it! [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't see why an acceptance of the infallibility of Scripture would need to produce wince-inducing peculiar interpretations. At least, I don't see why the interpretations of someone who believes in the infallibilty of Scripture would necessarily be more wince-inducing and peculiar than those of someone who doesn't believe Scripture is infallible.

I can't speak for orfeo but from where I sit, there are two reasons:

1. Infallibleites have to reconcile apparently contradictory verses which requires some bit of contortion;

2. Infallibleites have to (or at least do) accept as "true" some things which on their face are absurd.

quote:
Does that interpretation seem peculiar and wince-inducing? Because it's one that can be held perfectly reasonably by someone who accepts the infallibility of Scripture. The question is simply one of recognising the genre of any given passage.
Dropping back from necessity to contingency, that's not an interpretation that infallibleites are wont to accept.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:


I don't see that anybody on this thread is either doing or condoning that. I believe the name for this fallacy is "straw man".

[Confused] I didn't say any one on this thread was doing this.

I said it's one of the situations for which I find infallibility is a useful tool.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In reality, what we always do when people use words is try to work out what they are communicating. One of the questions we ask in that process is "Is this true?"

Infallibility means that the answer to that question is always yes. It answers that question, not the others.

Well actually, just the fact that someone is not lying means the answer is yes. Or at least, it means the person honestly believes the answer is yes.

I suppose the infallibility of God means you can guarantee that His belief in what He's communicating to you is a justified one. Which does get you to the right result, albeit through a slightly different route.

However, there still remains a serious stumbling block in your communication route. The question "is this true" is tremendously abstract. Every time you actually ask this question in your head in real life, you go through a process of defining what "this" is.

Any time you say "is this true?", my instinctive response (analytical bastard that I am) will be to shoot back "is WHAT true?".

And that's where the problem lies. The definition of "this" lies in the interpretation of the listener. Based on what they thought the speaker said, yes, but we all know it's perfectly possible for 2 listeners to come away with different impressions from the listening to the same speaker.

As you've illustrated in a subseqent post, you can get rid of direct contradictions. But that simply doesn't solve much. Again, use of abstract algebra of "X" and "not X" simply isn't a true reflection of the complex ideas that are in the Bible. It will only get you past the really simple ones.

As previously mentioned, one need only take a look through Dead Horses. One can pit my deep and sincere conviction that the Bible says nothing against homosexuality and homosexual behaviour per se with other people's equally deep and sincere conviction that homosexual behaviour is intrinsically morally wrong. "X" and "not X". Taken from reading the same Bible. The same words, but with differing opinions about the ideas those words are intended to convey.

And that's why it doesn't work. "X" and "not X" are ideas. The Bible is written in words, not ideas. See. My. Sig.

Yes. I have read your sig. Hermeneutics is complicated. I get that. I didn't choose the X and Y terminology, I was merely responding to it.

You have obviously met some people who believed in infallibility who also thought hermeneutics was easy. I am not that person. You don't need to talk to me as if I am.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't see why an acceptance of the infallibility of Scripture would need to produce wince-inducing peculiar interpretations. At least, I don't see why the interpretations of someone who believes in the infallibilty of Scripture would necessarily be more wince-inducing and peculiar than those of someone who doesn't believe Scripture is infallible.

Just to take the Noah's Ark story as an example already raised. It seems to me that an interpretation that says it's a mythical account (potentially based on an actual flood of limited extent, with a family of survivors and some livestock saved because they had access to a boat) included in Scripture to remind the people of Israel of the holiness of God and his urge to destroy sin coupled with his mercy to save - a truth that was repeatedly demonstrated as the people of Israel sinned and were punished in the wilderness and throughout the occupation of the Promised Land upto and beyond the Exile. And, a truth that's repeated in other myths in those early chapters of Scripture - Babel, Sodom and Gommorah etc.

Does that interpretation seem peculiar and wince-inducing? Because it's one that can be held perfectly reasonably by someone who accepts the infallibility of Scripture. The question is simply one of recognising the genre of any given passage.

Nope, that interpretation doesn't induce wincing. Mousethief has pretty well covered it.

One of the examples of wincing I've encountered is when people try to explain why women don't really have to wear hats in church. Non-wincing is to explain the relevant passage in the context of the time and the soceity, eg that respectable women wore hats everywhere. Wincing occurs when people start trying to say things like the covering of a woman's head is either her hair or her husband...

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You are saying some very odd things.

You already agreed with the suggestion that infallibility means the Bible expresses God's views on reality, right? God's ideas.

So they are not the authors' own ideas.

So how did the ideas get into the authors' heads?

To say "God over rules the use of human natural thought processes" seems to be a terribly oblique away of saying exactly what I said: that God controls the ideas. He put them into the authors' heads. [Multiple authors obviously, not 1 author with multiple heads.] The author may control the words, but again, see my sig. It's there for reasons that highly pertinent to this thread.

No I'm not saying that at all.

This is evangelical doctrine 101. I can dig up notes from theological college decades ago saying this.

Evangelicals are not Muslims. They do not accept a kind of 'automatic writing' where Allah dictates to Muhammad what to write.

The biblical authors wrote entirely what they wanted to write. The ideas are entirely their ideas, writing in their culture, the way anybody would.

However, at the same time God works sovereignly so that what we end up with is his divine revelation. I don't see how the question - but isn't it human to be fallible? need to apply to the bible any differently than it does to Jesus.

The fact that you find my comments odd and silly strongly suggests that you have not come across this doctrine clearly stated before. As i said, all I'm saying is evangelical doctrine of scripture 101. I think you should work on getting a decent grasp on what the doctrine is before you attack it.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And your remark about words of knowledge is utterly silly - which I think you know. The tongue doesn't go around forming words all on its own. A person speaks a word of knowledge or a prophecy because the idea is inside their head. If you believe in such things (which I do), then the idea is inside their head because God put it there. Indeed, the entire point of a 'word of knowledge' is that it can't possibly have originated inside the speaker, because the speaker didn't possess the necessary information to form it.

Again you are attacking a straw man here. The words the speakers use are their own words (although, as MT points out, the kind of 'heavenly language' of 1 Cor. 13 doesn't quite fit here) but the inspiration comes from God. Even within the NT words of prophecy were to be tested - which again counters this kind of 'divine dictation' that you seem to be setting up just to knock down.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:


1. Infallibleites have to reconcile apparently contradictory verses which requires some bit of contortion;

2. Infallibleites have to (or at least do) accept as "true" some things which on their face are absurd.

Light is both a wave and a particle.

That statement is both absurd and contradictory.

Because I'm not infallible I'm not sure whether this is the second or third time I've asked this question - MT why doesn't your position logically dismiss the pursuit of science as useful?

[ETA - Alan has given a perfectly reasonable and consistent articulation of infallibility.]

[ 19. November 2010, 23:47: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You are saying some very odd things.

You already agreed with the suggestion that infallibility means the Bible expresses God's views on reality, right? God's ideas.

So they are not the authors' own ideas.

So how did the ideas get into the authors' heads?

To say "God over rules the use of human natural thought processes" seems to be a terribly oblique away of saying exactly what I said: that God controls the ideas. He put them into the authors' heads. [Multiple authors obviously, not 1 author with multiple heads.] The author may control the words, but again, see my sig. It's there for reasons that highly pertinent to this thread.

No I'm not saying that at all.

This is evangelical doctrine 101. I can dig up notes from theological college decades ago saying this.

Evangelicals are not Muslims. They do not accept a kind of 'automatic writing' where Allah dictates to Muhammad what to write.

The biblical authors wrote entirely what they wanted to write. The ideas are entirely their ideas, writing in their culture, the way anybody would.

However, at the same time God works sovereignly so that what we end up with is his divine revelation. I don't see how the question - but isn't it human to be fallible? need to apply to the bible any differently than it does to Jesus.

The fact that you find my comments odd and silly strongly suggests that you have not come across this doctrine clearly stated before. As i said, all I'm saying is evangelical doctrine of scripture 101. I think you should work on getting a decent grasp on what the doctrine is before you attack it.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And your remark about words of knowledge is utterly silly - which I think you know. The tongue doesn't go around forming words all on its own. A person speaks a word of knowledge or a prophecy because the idea is inside their head. If you believe in such things (which I do), then the idea is inside their head because God put it there. Indeed, the entire point of a 'word of knowledge' is that it can't possibly have originated inside the speaker, because the speaker didn't possess the necessary information to form it.

Again you are attacking a straw man here. The words the speakers use are their own words (although, as MT points out, the kind of 'heavenly language' of 1 Cor. 13 doesn't quite fit here) but the inspiration comes from God. Even within the NT words of prophecy were to be tested - which again counters this kind of 'divine dictation' that you seem to be setting up just to knock down.

What's the difference between 'inspiration' and 'ideas', then?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Light is both a wave and a particle.

I can't see in the least how this is relevant. Are you saying the Bible is both infallible and not infallible? Schroedinger's bible? Are you saying that Jesus can eat the one unique last supper on both Friday and Thursday? What are you saying? How is it relevant to the conversation thus far?

quote:
Because I'm not infallible I'm not sure whether this is the second or third time I've asked this question - MT why doesn't your position logically dismiss the pursuit of science as useful?
This is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I've answered it. Because science doesn't claim to be infallible. Science can chop and change (and should and will). If God's message is infallible, how can it change? He is the same yesterday and today and all that. We don't get "new data" to change the theory. If Bible is infallible, it means something and its meaning is fixed, I should think. At least that's what all the people who use the term "infallible" that I've heard say.

Actually it doesn't dismiss the Bible as useful either. The Bible can be quite useful without being infallible.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What's the difference between 'inspiration' and 'ideas', then?

The way you have been using 'idea' God plants an alien notion into our mind rather like sending a text message.

Inspiration means that the writer, as they convey their own ideas, also truly reveals the character and purposes of God.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Light is both a wave and a particle.

I can't see in the least how this is relevant. Are you saying the Bible is both infallible and not infallible? Schroedinger's bible? Are you saying that Jesus can eat the one unique last supper on both Friday and Thursday? What are you saying? How is it relevant to the conversation thus far?

quote:
Because I'm not infallible I'm not sure whether this is the second or third time I've asked this question - MT why doesn't your position logically dismiss the pursuit of science as useful?
This is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I've answered it. Because science doesn't claim to be infallible. Science can chop and change (and should and will). If God's message is infallible, how can it change? He is the same yesterday and today and all that. We don't get "new data" to change the theory. If Bible is infallible, it means something and its meaning is fixed, I should think. At least that's what all the people who use the term "infallible" that I've heard say.

Actually it doesn't dismiss the Bible as useful either. The Bible can be quite useful without being infallible.

Apologies, I can see why I thought you hadn't answered my question now.

I need to re-state the question because I now see that you were answering a different question.

The Scientific endeavour is based on the assumption that there is an objective reality out there to know. By way of analogy it is that objective reality that I am comparing to infallibility - to truly know objective reality.

However, in our attempts to understand and explain reality we come up with apparently absurd and contradictory statements, like those about light. My point is that no one concludes from these contradictions that there is no 'infallible' reality. Nor do scientists give up on the assumption that with each successive theory we are actually getting closer to that full understanding of reality rather than further away.

My question was meant to be this - mutually contradictory models and statements do not cause scientists to give up on their quest to understand the 'infallible' reality of the world, why should it cause you to give up your quest to understand God's infallible word? Now, of course, none of this gives any evidence at all that the bible really is infallible, I just don't see the logical inconsistency that you and Orfeo seem to see.

The bible is of no use at all, apart from as great literature, if it is not infallible. To carry on the analogy, if it is not infallible then it is merely a mirror to reality - helping us to see human society but giving us no objective reference with which to critique it. Given this mirror any decent scientist will throw it away because they can look directly at the world already. What extra insight does a mirror bring?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The Scientific endeavour is based on the assumption that there is an objective reality out there to know. By way of analogy it is that objective reality that I am comparing to infallibility - to truly know objective reality.

However, in our attempts to understand and explain reality we come up with apparently absurd and contradictory statements, like those about light. My point is that no one concludes from these contradictions that there is no 'infallible' reality.

Stop. Illegal procedure. 10 yards from line of scrimmage. Down over.

Nobody thinks the physical world is infallible. That's a category error. The physical world is THERE. This is a miserable analogy to the infallibility of the Bible. The Bible, too, is just THERE. Infallibility adds another layer that isn't added to science.

Further science doesn't make any moral imperatives. You don't turn to science for information on how to save your eternal soul. What science does is always in the "close enough" bucket, and as science progresses, it's still only "close enough". Pace the neoatheist science worshippers, we'll never have the complete answer to everything -- even everything in the physical spacetime universe -- from science. That's not what we expect.

On the other hand, if you're using the Bible as an infallible guide to salvation, then "close enough" isn't close enough. If ten years from now you come up with an altered theory of what it takes to get saved, then everybody who died in the last 10 years could be in immortal danger! If the Bible is infallible and the only guide to morals and salvation, then we have to make sure we've got it right. Approximations won't do. That's why we need an infallible interpretation for the infallibility of the Bible to be of any use at all.

Science isn't infallible, and what science discovers has no moral or salvific imperative attached to it.

quote:
My question was meant to be this - mutually contradictory models and statements do not cause scientists to give up on their quest to understand the 'infallible' reality of the world, why should it cause you to give up your quest to understand God's infallible word?
I haven't given up anything. See above for the absurdity of using "infallible" about the physical world as studied by science. I didn't say anything about giving up on trying to understand the Bible. But my hermeneutic is quite different from yours, in part because I don't have this "infallibility" shibboleth hanging around my neck like an albatross. And also because I don't have the "sola scriptura" imperative either. And because my model of salvation is not dependent upon understanding the nuances of biblical messages about salvation.

quote:
Now, of course, none of this gives any evidence at all that the bible really is infallible, I just don't see the logical inconsistency that you and Orfeo seem to see.
Well, not if you think doing science and doing Biblical interpretation are analagous and that the physical world is "infallible". Of course not.

quote:
The bible is of no use at all, apart from as great literature, if it is not infallible.
Whoa. Big claims demand big proofs, as the atheists say. Go for it.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Stop. Illegal procedure. 10 yards from line of scrimmage. Down over.

If we are using sporting analogies then quit moving the goal-posts. You switch between arguments about God and arguments about the bible at the speed of light.


quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody thinks the physical world is infallible. That's a category error.

I know. That is why I use the word analogy. God was the infallible thing I was talking about. The bible the means to know him.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The physical world is THERE. This is a miserable analogy to the infallibility of the Bible. The Bible, too, is just THERE. Infallibility adds another layer that isn't added to science.

Yes, and people who think that God is not THERE are generally called atheists.

For a Christian God is THERE in the same way that the physical world is THERE. At that point we come to an epistemological question about how we know him. I'm happy to discuss that question if you want to, but you still haven't shown why infallibility is inconsistent or some kind of category error.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the examples of wincing I've encountered is when people try to explain why women don't really have to wear hats in church. Non-wincing is to explain the relevant passage in the context of the time and the soceity, eg that respectable women wore hats everywhere. Wincing occurs when people start trying to say things like the covering of a woman's head is either her hair or her husband...

And, of course, one can very easily say that the wearing of hats was a cultural expectation of the time, and therefore doesn't necessarily hold today (unless you're in part of society, or certain events, where respectable women wear hats). There's no reason why someone who accepts the infallibility of Scripture would have any problems with that approach.

I'm getting the impression you haven't really come across a broad spectrum of evangelicals, and others, who accept the infallibility of Scripture. Many of your "wince inducing" hermeneutics seem to be closer to what I've come across from people who accept the inerrancy of Scripture (and, even then you can accept Scripture as inerrant and recognise that there are genres that don't require literal truth - parables or poetry, for example), or possibly those who accept infallibility but assume that there's also a simple "plain reading" of Scripture that's valid without applying the hard work of understanding Scripture.

As I've said, the belief in the infallibiltiy and inspiration of Scripture as originally given is a call to take study of Scripture seriously. I'd also add that sola Scriptura struggles under the clause - we accept that Scripture is primary, but at the end of the day that serious work to understand Scripture means that we have to accept the valuable input of theologians, and others, to help us understand what the Bible says. At the end of the day the interpretation of Scripture is the communal work of the entire Church, not the work of individuals reading alone in their own personal quiet time (although personal devotion has value).

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For a Christian God is THERE in the same way that the physical world is THERE. At that point we come to an epistemological question about how we know him. I'm happy to discuss that question if you want to, but you still haven't shown why infallibility is inconsistent or some kind of category error.

Well, I have, but apparently you missed it. You certainly haven't refuted it.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For a Christian God is THERE in the same way that the physical world is THERE. At that point we come to an epistemological question about how we know him. I'm happy to discuss that question if you want to, but you still haven't shown why infallibility is inconsistent or some kind of category error.

Well, I have, but apparently you missed it. You certainly haven't refuted it.
Sorry, all I can find you saying is "Infallibility isn't very useful because there is no infallible interpretation". When I answered your post about this, you ignored most of my post and then accused me of setting up straw men about people on this thread when I had done nothing of the sort.

I don't count that as proving that infallibility is a category error. More needed please.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well - the practical usefulness in that scenario is that the infallibility tool allows you to say "one test if it really does say X is if it says something contradicting X elsewhere, then it can't be saying X".

A subset of the problem at most. And for when it doesn't shake out this easily, how is it useful?

And really, if we have a situation where the Bible appears to say X here, and appears to say not-X there, how will the infallibility "tool" tell us which one to accept at face value, in order to work out an alternate interpretation/explanation of the other?

[ 21. November 2010, 07:03: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For a Christian God is THERE in the same way that the physical world is THERE. At that point we come to an epistemological question about how we know him. I'm happy to discuss that question if you want to, but you still haven't shown why infallibility is inconsistent or some kind of category error.

Well, I have, but apparently you missed it. You certainly haven't refuted it.
Since we're not making much progress here, why don't we put it the other way round - how do you think we know God?

Precisely for all the reasons you listed earlier (about needing to know exactly what God said if we are to obey him) the question of epistemology is an important one.

Assuming that God exists (in the sense that the world is THERE) how do we know him, his character and his desires?

The Christian response is that God has revealed himself in the person of his Son. Although since Christ walked on earth 2000 years ago that isn't much use to those of us living now. In order to know what he is like I have to have an account of Jesus that is completely trustworthy. I'm happy to believe in Julius Caesar but I won't be submitting my life to him just on the basis of the Gallic wars.

The way I get to know anyone is by talking to them and communicating with them. However, for this to work I need to confidence that all the bits of information are consistently coming from the same person. Some times they appear to be mutually contradictory but they must the same person. If I don't have that confidence then the whole process breaks down. It become meaningless to speak of knowing them at all if I have on idea when I'm listening to them and when I'm listening to someone else.

So how do you know God with the degree of confidence necessary to trust him and to obey him?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And really, if we have a situation where the Bible appears to say X here, and appears to say not-X there, how will the infallibility "tool" tell us which one to accept at face value, in order to work out an alternate interpretation/explanation of the other?

But this was the point of my scientific paradigm analogy.

Knowing the experimental data tells us that light functions as both a particle and a wave does not (in and of itself) help us to come up with a better model. But what the hard data prevents us from doing is simply saying that one of the models is 'wrong' and thus the 'real' answer is that light is a wave only and not a particle.

So too with the bible. Commitment to the infallibility of scripture forces us to carry on wrestling with scripture without arbitrarily picking X or non-X.

[ 21. November 2010, 21:47: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The Christian response is that God has revealed himself in the person of his Son.

Primarily, first and foremost. But there are other places/ways. God did send His Spirit. This is a very Protestant answer, I think, in its incompleteness.

Although since Christ walked on earth 2000 years ago that isn't much use to those of us living now.[/qb][/quote]

No, but the Holy Spirit, in the life of the Church and particularly in the life of her saints, is.

quote:
If I don't have that confidence then the whole process breaks down.
But that's just it. If you don't know how to interpret the Bible, its infallibility doesn't help you here at all. The infallibility of the Bible imparts no confidence if we cannot say with confidence that it says one thing and not the opposite.

quote:
So how do you know God with the degree of confidence necessary to trust him and to obey him?
But you know what answer I will give to this: through His church.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What's the difference between 'inspiration' and 'ideas', then?

The way you have been using 'idea' God plants an alien notion into our mind rather like sending a text message.

Inspiration means that the writer, as they convey their own ideas, also truly reveals the character and purposes of God.

And how exactly does God ensure that inspiration works? Given that no planting is allowed. If God does not speak to the authors in any shape or form, I don't see how you can get to a point where you are confident that God's message is revealed.

Basically my concern with the position you are putting is that I can't discern any active role for God in the process of writing the Bible. You have human authors expressing human ideas, and they managed to nail the character and purposes of God? Golly, that was lucky wasn't it?

[ 22. November 2010, 00:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, but the Holy Spirit, in the life of the Church and particularly in the life of her saints, is.

I presume that is the same holy Spirit whose prophecies Paul tells the Thessalonians to test in 1 Thess. 5 v 21?

What do we test our experience of the Spirit against?

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that's just it. If you don't know how to interpret the Bible, its infallibility doesn't help you here at all. The infallibility of the Bible imparts no confidence if we cannot say with confidence that it says one thing and not the opposite.

[Confused] So you cannot trust something unless you understand it exhaustively? Sounds like you want a domesticated God that you can put in your pocket.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
So how do you know God with the degree of confidence necessary to trust him and to obey him?
But you know what answer I will give to this: through His church.
Well then, you'll know the answer I'll give to you as well ...

is His church infallible?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Basically my concern with the position you are putting is that I can't discern any active role for God in the process of writing the Bible. You have human authors expressing human ideas, and they managed to nail the character and purposes of God? Golly, that was lucky wasn't it?

No more lucky than the incarnation.

I think it is fair enough to ask the question but I don't see any qualitative difference to asking how Mary conceived the Son of God.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that's just it. If you don't know how to interpret the Bible, its infallibility doesn't help you here at all. The infallibility of the Bible imparts no confidence if we cannot say with confidence that it says one thing and not the opposite.

[Confused] So you cannot trust something unless you understand it exhaustively? Sounds like you want a domesticated God that you can put in your pocket.
I didn't say exhaustively. Infallibly. Have you read what I've been writing? Where did I ever say exhaustively? Sounds like you want a domesticated debate partner you can put in your pocket.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Basically my concern with the position you are putting is that I can't discern any active role for God in the process of writing the Bible. You have human authors expressing human ideas, and they managed to nail the character and purposes of God? Golly, that was lucky wasn't it?

No more lucky than the incarnation.

I think it is fair enough to ask the question but I don't see any qualitative difference to asking how Mary conceived the Son of God.

Um... I'm fairly sure that God is usually given some credit for making the incarnation occur. That's my point. You seem to be presenting a position on the Bible that gives God no credit for making the Bible occur.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I didn't say exhaustively.

Yes you did.

The only person who would look at the subject of light and say that particle or wave was a contradiction that needed to be resolved is someone who had exhaustive knowledge of light.

Only the person who has exhaustive knowledge can say that X or non-X in the scriptures must be a contradiction where one option must be chosen over the other.

I also think that you are exaggerating this issue. Direct contradictions are not that common in the bible. There is plenty that seems to contradict but doesn't when you look more closely.

BTW you haven't said whether you think the church is infallible or not.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
]Um... I'm fairly sure that God is usually given some credit for making the incarnation occur. That's my point. You seem to be presenting a position on the Bible that gives God no credit for making the Bible occur.

And I thought that a miracle was, by definition, something that has no rational explanation.

That fallible human beings could come up with an infallible document is not natural - for it to be true it demands supernatural origin.

The same is also true for the virgin birth - that a human being could give birth to God is not natural - it demands a supernatural origin.

The fact that you choose to believe one without knowing the process and not the other is relatively arbitrary.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The church is not infallible, as a collection of human beings. The church as the body of Christ is of course infallible because Christ is infallible. We define "tradition" as the working of the Holy Spirit in the church -- and the Holy Spirit is of course infallible.

Of course the church, according to St Paul, is the ground and pillar of the truth. Not the Bible.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We define "tradition" as the working of the Holy Spirit in the church -- and the Holy Spirit is of course infallible.

I'm going to assume you're not arguing that the work of the Holy Spirit is infallible. You have no problem with the Infallible producing something that is Fallible - you've just said that fallible tradition is the work of the infallible Holy Spirit.

So, why do you seem to have problems with the same idea if you replace the Holy Spirit with Scripture (also a work of the Holy Spirit in the Church, of course)? Your argument, or at least part of it, has been that Scriptural Infallibility is at best purely theoretical as we can't have an infallible interpretation. You don't apply the same argument that the infallibility of the Holy Spirit is at best theoretical since we can't have an infallible tradition produced by his work.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
]Um... I'm fairly sure that God is usually given some credit for making the incarnation occur. That's my point. You seem to be presenting a position on the Bible that gives God no credit for making the Bible occur.

And I thought that a miracle was, by definition, something that has no rational explanation.

That fallible human beings could come up with an infallible document is not natural - for it to be true it demands supernatural origin.

The same is also true for the virgin birth - that a human being could give birth to God is not natural - it demands a supernatural origin.

The fact that you choose to believe one without knowing the process and not the other is relatively arbitrary.

So you're starting with the assumption that the bible is an infallible document -- that's axiomatic for you. There's no other way of interpreting your first paragraph that makes sense.

Why then are you participating in a discussion about whether or not the Bible is infallible? From your point of view, the answer is "yes" -- not as the result of discussion or debate or logic or reason or, even, revelation -- it just "is". At least, that's the only way I can interpret the rest of this post.

As participants and lurkers on the thread, I think a number of us have already noticed and noted that you are "discussing" the OP using different assumptions and a wholly different frame of reference to what other people are using.

I don't think there is any point at which you and the others who have been posting so far are even talking about the same thing, using the same language. It's just my opinion, but for what it's worth, this is a dialogue of the deaf that leads nowhere.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
]Um... I'm fairly sure that God is usually given some credit for making the incarnation occur. That's my point. You seem to be presenting a position on the Bible that gives God no credit for making the Bible occur.

And I thought that a miracle was, by definition, something that has no rational explanation.

That fallible human beings could come up with an infallible document is not natural - for it to be true it demands supernatural origin.

The same is also true for the virgin birth - that a human being could give birth to God is not natural - it demands a supernatural origin.

The fact that you choose to believe one without knowing the process and not the other is relatively arbitrary.

A supernatural origin for the ideas expressed in the Bible is precisely what I said, and you pooh-poohed it.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
So you're starting with the assumption that the bible is an infallible document -- that's axiomatic for you. There's no other way of interpreting your first paragraph that makes sense.

Yes that it true. I think that I have some rational reasons for accepting this position but, ultimately, I'm sure it comes down to my axioms.

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Why then are you participating in a discussion about whether or not the Bible is infallible? From your point of view, the answer is "yes" -- not as the result of discussion or debate or logic or reason or, even, revelation -- it just "is". At least, that's the only way I can interpret the rest of this post.

This is a DH thread. Almost by definition it concerns an issue where our axioms clash. What I smell here is an attempt to claim the moral high-ground that some axioms are better than others. Maybe you just picked on me arbitrarily but the fact you did certainly gives that impression.

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

As participants and lurkers on the thread, I think a number of us have already noticed and noted that you are "discussing" the OP using different assumptions and a wholly different frame of reference to what other people are using.

I don't think there is any point at which you and the others who have been posting so far are even talking about the same thing, using the same language. It's just my opinion, but for what it's worth, this is a dialogue of the deaf that leads nowhere.

John

Again you may well be right, but if so then Alan and others must fit into the same category since Alan's last post was exactly where I was heading.

Overall I think you are probably right and had just about run out of steam because we were getting nowhere - as I said in my last few posts to MT.

However, you appear to be saying that this is a topic where people often talk past each other because of their axioms - haven't you just defined a DH and asked why anybody would ever want to discuss one?

Do you want to tell the Admins that DH is no longer needed?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
So you're starting with the assumption that the bible is an infallible document -- that's axiomatic for you. There's no other way of interpreting your first paragraph that makes sense.

Why then are you participating in a discussion about whether or not the Bible is infallible? From your point of view, the answer is "yes" -- not as the result of discussion or debate or logic or reason or, even, revelation -- it just "is". At least, that's the only way I can interpret the rest of this post.

As participants and lurkers on the thread, I think a number of us have already noticed and noted that you are "discussing" the OP using different assumptions and a wholly different frame of reference to what other people are using.

I don't think there is any point at which you and the others who have been posting so far are even talking about the same thing, using the same language. It's just my opinion, but for what it's worth, this is a dialogue of the deaf that leads nowhere.

John

John, I think you're being rather unfair. The thread is not solely about whether the Bible is infallible. It is also about what 'infallible' actually means.

And that has been the primary aspect of the conversation between myself and Johnny S. It's perfectly sensible to assume, for the sake of that aspect of the argument, that the Bible is 'infallible' and work from that point.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A supernatural origin for the ideas expressed in the Bible is precisely what I said, and you pooh-poohed it.

No. I pooh-poohed the notion that God 'planted' the words in the minds of the authors.

When a composer comes up with an amazing piece of music we say that he was inspired today. In no way are we suggesting that the composition was not entirely his own work.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Your argument, or at least part of it, has been that Scriptural Infallibility is at best purely theoretical as we can't have an infallible interpretation. You don't apply the same argument that the infallibility of the Holy Spirit is at best theoretical since we can't have an infallible tradition produced by his work.

I don't see those as analagous in that way. Church tradition is applied at the individual level by the church's priests who are fallible -- that should be the level at which this argument is aimed. However it is not I who require the Bible (or Tradition) to be infallible -- that is Johnny S's position. My argument with him is that if he requires infallibility, he doesn't get it due to the lack of an infallible interpretation.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
When a composer comes up with an amazing piece of music we say that he was inspired today. In no way are we suggesting that the composition was not entirely his own work.

We are using it metaphorically of the composer. Not so of the authors of the biblical text. This is a lousy argument.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A supernatural origin for the ideas expressed in the Bible is precisely what I said, and you pooh-poohed it.

No. I pooh-poohed the notion that God 'planted' the words in the minds of the authors.

When a composer comes up with an amazing piece of music we say that he was inspired today. In no way are we suggesting that the composition was not entirely his own work.

Planted the IDEAS, not the words. Significant difference.

By your argument, when we talk about the Incarnation we should say that God inspired Mary to become pregnant. I cannot recall ever hearing anyone express it in that fashion.

Also, you are arguing in contradiction to yourself by demonstrating with the composer example that the source of the inspiration is not the origin. But you want a supernatural origin for the 'inspired' Bible. You cannot sensibly have both of these. If God inspired the Bible authors, then by your own argument the Bible does not have a supernatural origin. It originated with the authors.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see those as analagous in that way. Church tradition is applied at the individual level by the church's priests who are fallible -- that should be the level at which this argument is aimed. However it is not I who require the Bible (or Tradition) to be infallible -- that is Johnny S's position. My argument with him is that if he requires infallibility, he doesn't get it due to the lack of an infallible interpretation.

If that is the case then I can't make sense of what you said earlier:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

So how do you know God with the degree of confidence necessary to trust him and to obey him?

But you know what answer I will give to this: through His church.

All your arguments about 'not obeying something unless you have strong reasons to accept it' apply to your position also. I asked you where you get this kind of assurance from (if not the bible) and you answered - the church.

I can't see how this in any different. If the church is fallible, as you say, then you have no reason to obey what she teaches on any given point, because she may be wrong.

Unless you say something like 'but God has sovereignly worked through his Spirit preserving her from error' - which is exactly what evangelicals say about the bible!

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We are using it metaphorically of the composer. Not so of the authors of the biblical text. This is a lousy argument.

[Confused] Where do you think the metaphor originated from in the first place?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, you are arguing in contradiction to yourself by demonstrating with the composer example that the source of the inspiration is not the origin. But you want a supernatural origin for the 'inspired' Bible. You cannot sensibly have both of these. If God inspired the Bible authors, then by your own argument the Bible does not have a supernatural origin. It originated with the authors.

No, I'm being consistent to my incarnation analogy. The bible is entirely human (but without 'sin') and entirely divine (but without denying its humanity).

You are setting up a dichotomy that the early church fathers worked hard to knock down.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PS Before anyone points it out I'm aware that the danger of my position is that it could lead to someone elevating the bible to the level of the trinity.

I think that is a fair call since that is a danger that many evangelicals fall into it. However, I don't think it is a necessarily corollary of my position.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We are using it metaphorically of the composer. Not so of the authors of the biblical text. This is a lousy argument.

[Confused] Where do you think the metaphor originated from in the first place?
Does that make it not a metaphor? No. Why did you even say it then?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Unless you're saying that when we call the Bible "inspired" it's just a metaphor too -- it's not really in-breathed by God?

And yes the Church as the guardian of Christian theology and ethical teaching is infallible. As we define the Church.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
PS Before anyone points it out I'm aware that the danger of my position is that it could lead to someone elevating the bible to the level of the trinity.

I think that is a fair call since that is a danger that many evangelicals fall into it. However, I don't think it is a necessarily corollary of my position.

Frankly, I think the biggest danger of your position is confusing persons with things.

Not only on the count of using words like 'human' and 'divine' for the Bible, but also in slapping together a composer being 'inspired' with something being 'inspired BY' God. The meanings are actually quite different if you're focusing on the source of inspiration being a person, versus the source of inspiration being a thing - the latter naturally leading to a focus on the person inspired.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Your argument, or at least part of it, has been that Scriptural Infallibility is at best purely theoretical as we can't have an infallible interpretation. You don't apply the same argument that the infallibility of the Holy Spirit is at best theoretical since we can't have an infallible tradition produced by his work.

I don't see those as analagous in that way. Church tradition is applied at the individual level by the church's priests who are fallible -- that should be the level at which this argument is aimed. However it is not I who require the Bible (or Tradition) to be infallible -- that is Johnny S's position. My argument with him is that if he requires infallibility, he doesn't get it due to the lack of an infallible interpretation.
I got that you weren't claiming infallibility for Church tradition. You were claiming Church tradition is a working of the Holy Spirit (which I agree with) and that the Spirit is infallible. Thus you were claiming that something of considerable value and importance, Church tradition, can be produced by something infallible even though that's done with the input of fallible human beings and the product is also fallible. This appears to be inconsistent with the position you've stated with regard to the infallibility of Scripture that the lack of an infallible interpretation is an argument against the infallibiltiy of Scripture - you don't seem to be saying that the lack of an infallible Tradition is an argument against the infallibility of the Spirit who works in the Church to produce that Tradition.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And yes the Church as the guardian of Christian theology and ethical teaching is infallible. As we define the Church.

In which case we've reached a dead-end.

Since, as you say, the bible is the product of the infallible church, I cannot see why you have any argument in principle against the bible being infallible.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was saying that the infallibility of the Bible does you no good without an infallible interpretation, for the ways that the proponents of the infallibility of the Bible want it to work. They set up the Bible as infallible to achieve certain ends, but they don't get them because they can't get at the infallible Bible infallibly.

I don't set up the Holy Spirit as infallible. And really your analogy is off a step. The analogue of the Bible is the Tradition, not the Spirit. The same Spirit produced the scriptures and the other bits of Tradition -- for in orthodoxy we don't divide "tradition" and "Scripture" the way the Anglicans do. For us, scripture is part of the tradition. It is one of the things handed down to us.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unless you're saying that when we call the Bible "inspired" it's just a metaphor too -- it's not really in-breathed by God?

I would call the Bible 'inspired' because I believe that it really is in-breathed by God. I just don't have a clue as to how God did the in-breathing. There's another similar metaphor in the Bible itself; God took handfuls of common dirt and formed a clay figure, He then in-breathed life to that figure to create a living being.

In an analogous way we could say that Scripture is like a clay figure in-breathed with life by God. It is composed of the words of fallible humans (I'm not sure if many, or even any, of the original authors considered themselves to be writing inspired Scripture) edited and redacted by fallible humans, recognised as Scripture by other fallible human beings. The fact that you can legitimately apply textual analysis based on the literary styles of different authors and understand things in terms of cultural norms and expectations of the time adds testimony to the human origin of the Scriptures. On that I think we're all agreed. The question is the extent to which we consider Scripture to be a living document, in which the breath of God works and moves. And, whether if we consider that God has somehow in-breathed life to the Scriptures whether we then consider the Scriptures to be infallible.

quote:
And yes the Church as the guardian of Christian theology and ethical teaching is infallible. As we define the Church.
And, the fundamental difference between that statement and "Scripture as the guardian of Christian theology and ethical teaching is infallible. As we define Scripture" is what? If you're going to axiomatically assume that a bunch of fallible human beings can be infallible, why do you have such difficulty with the axiomatic assumption that a bunch of scribblings from fallible human beings can also be infallible?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm surprised, Alan, you didn't see where this was going. The scriptures as interpreted by the Orthodox Church are infallible.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't set up the Holy Spirit as infallible.

Well, you stated a belief that the Spirit is infallible.

quote:
And really your analogy is off a step. The analogue of the Bible is the Tradition, not the Spirit. The same Spirit produced the scriptures and the other bits of Tradition -- for in orthodoxy we don't divide "tradition" and "Scripture" the way the Anglicans do. For us, scripture is part of the tradition. It is one of the things handed down to us.
Here's a question. You've declared belief in the infallibility of the Church, is that infallibility not embodied by the Tradition of the Church? When the Church has to decide something, a response to changing societal problems or a development of theology as scholarship advances, does it not draw upon Tradition? If so, how are you drawing a line between the Church and Tradition? You seem to be working on an assumption of an infallible Tradition, yet claiming that the earliest parts of that Tradition which in a sense form the foundations of what developed later are not infallible. Am I just totally misunderstanding you when you claim infallibility for the Church?

And, of course, many of us who accept the infallibility of Scripture are more than willing to recognise that it forms part of subsequent traditions. And, that as evangelicals we have our own Tradition (shhhh... don't tell all evangelicals, as we often seem to like to think tradition is a bad thing) - I'm not sure what else to call the massive libraries of commentaries, sermons, devotional works etc. We just hold Scripture to be a higher part of that Tradition than the rest.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools