|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: biblical inerrancy
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote Leprechaun- quote:
It does not therefore make God a sadist that he uses punishment retributively for eternity (although he does, throughout the OT especially, use it to correct) Retribution for wrongdoing is the core of punishment, says our moral consience. God works the same way.
This is where a non-inerrantist asks whether the biblical authors might have made God somewhat in their own images.
"Eye for an eye" is just so damned satisfying!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
I am saying that we all believe that the only people who should be punished are those who have done something wrong.
There is a clear link between crime and punishment in the way we think about justice, whether you call that "punitive" or "desert", shown in the way that we ALWAYS link punishment to the commission of a crime. While it may sometimes be to reform, it can only really be punishment if the person committed a wrong in the first place.
In Matthew 5 Jesus is, you are right, saying that WE should not seek retributive justice against people who wrong US. I believe this precisely because God will seek it. So the state in Romans 14 is an instrument of God's justice, and God will avenge those who reject Jesus in hebrews.
God treats us with grace, but only because justice was served on Jesus. God's punishment eventually be eternal because people DESERVE it, not because it will make them better.
What has this to do with inerrancy?
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In Matthew 5 Jesus is, you are right, saying that WE should not seek retributive justice against people who wrong US. I believe this precisely because God will seek it. So the state in Romans 14 is an instrument of God's justice, and God will avenge those who reject Jesus in hebrews.
I think this is right. As an individual I am not to take retribution into my own hands (which could turn into uncontrolled or unfair vengeance). But Jesus is not teaching that society should turn the cheek or should not punish - Society needs impartial judges to make those decisions on our behalf.
But being totally fair and having view of the full picture, God is able to judge fairly and punish justly.
[ 20. February 2004, 16:48: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In Matthew 5 Jesus is, you are right, saying that WE should not seek retributive justice against people who wrong US. I believe this precisely because God will seek it.
But if I, a mere human, can get it into my head that people do not deserve to be punished for wronging me, but rather taught so as not to do the same again, does that not make me more loving than the god portrayed in the OT?
I don't for one minute believe that Jesus taught the masses not to stone the woman caught in adultery because it was something God was saving for himself.
quote:
What has this to do with inerrancy?
I dunno about you, but in my mind, it's all to do with whether the God of Vengeance found in some places in the Bible is an accurate portrayal. I think he's an excuse for selfish behaviour, personally.
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb]In Matthew 5 Jesus is, you are right, saying that WE should not seek retributive justice against people who wrong US. I believe this precisely because God will seek it.
But if I, a mere human, can get it into my head that people do not deserve to be punished for wronging me, but rather taught so as not to do the same again, does that not make me more loving than the god portrayed in the OT?
No, because you are not God. Ultimately it is not important if people wrong you. But if people live in God's creation ignoring Him, giver of life and everything good, THAT is wrong. THAT is important. God's glory does matter.
Its worth saying as well that God does use punishment to reform temporally , a sign of his great mercy, but ultimately, in eternity it is about what people deserve.
quote:
I don't for one minute believe that Jesus taught the masses not to stone the woman caught in adultery because it was something God was saving for himself.
Neither do I! My question is, why not? If she was caught in adultery, deliberately breaking God's commands why wasn't she punished by a just God? The answer is the cross, but I have had this discussion several times over on the PSA thread. I am not doing it again.
quote:
I dunno about you, but in my mind, it's all to do with whether the God of Vengeance found in some places in the Bible is an accurate portrayal. I think he's an excuse for selfish behaviour, personally.
There are a two issues here:
1) This all rests on an assumption that God cannot be both just AND merciful. As such, "errancy" is just making God smaller than he is because I can't understand him.
2) This reveals the true nature of doubting the Bible's veracity. Despite the protests of it being about archaeology and hermeneutics it turns out you don't accept it is true because you don't like what it says. Its interesting that you think the God of OT and the God of the NT are different, but you could reject the picture given in the Gospels of Jesus as inaccurate, and "choose" the OT God.
But you don't. You read selectively to find a God you like, and say that anything that doesn't fit in with him is a mistake. You choose the God that suits 21st century liberal values best. (and in fact, I think the "choice" is not a real choice because Jesus perfectly portrays the God of justice and mercy of the OT )
It is your call to read the Bible that way if you want. But don't say the inerrantist is the one throwing their brain away.
[ 20. February 2004, 17:13: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But you don't. You read selectively to find a God you like, and say that anything that doesn't fit in with him is a mistake.
No offence, Lep. But that's exactly what you are doing. Please don't assume that your point of view is free of all subjectivity.
Oh and I believe God is defined by love, not by justice; that he is just for love's sake, not loving for justice's sake. Punishment, then, to me must be in the interest of love - and not because he has some rep to keep.
AB
[ 20. February 2004, 18:00: Message edited by: AB ]
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AB:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb]But you don't. You read selectively to find a God you like, and say that anything that doesn't fit in with him is a mistake.
No offence, Lep. But that's exactly what you are doing. Please don't assume that your point of view is free of all subjectivity.
AB,
How can that be what I am doing as I am the one saying that there are no mistakes?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
Splitting hairs...
I see a representation of God I dislike, so consider the possibility of a mistake, weigh up the wealth of information I have at my disposal, Biblical and other, and make a decision.
You see a representation of God you dislike, 'resolve' the difference to preserve continuity in scripture and are happy to see mistakes in our logic/sinful nature/human otherness.
We are simply rolling our dice on different tables. But we are both still playing the same game.
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Same game different rules.
Which makes it a different game... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
The difference being I would never come to the conclusion that I am right and the Bible is wrong.
Its fine to have the discussion about any of these issues (PSA being one - yes I noticed your conversation on the Sytx, so why not bring that up again) but also innerancy, the character of God. Etc.
But every time I think I'm finding a way through the haze you move the goalposts, by saying
"yes we were talking about interpreting the Bible, but now we are talking about what I find most satisfactory or reasonable".
The other interesting thing about my rules is that I can still be left with a God I struggle with. You can't. Well you can, but only insofar as you are comfortable with him. Only inasmuch as he is reasonable You (and I don't mean just you AB but all the people round here who play by your rules) ALWAYS seem to end with a God who thinks that you are fine. That you are comfortable with. I end up with a God who I cannot fathom; his awesome holiness or deep mercy. A God that I can't box.
You know I've played the philosophy game and the pick holes in the argument game lots. But I'm feeling sick of it now. This all just feels too big to play wordgames over, and I'm not sure its a good part of me that wants to argue everyhting down to the nth degree. I just want to know God better.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
The other interesting thing about my rules is that I can still be left with a God I struggle with. You can't.
Bollocks. Struggling with God? Welcome to my world.
quote:
Well you can, but only insofar as you are comfortable with him.
You really haven't got a clue about how I "am" with God, so don't try to imagine you do.
quote:
Only inasmuch as he is reasonable You (and I don't mean just you AB but all the people round here who play by your rules) ALWAYS seem to end with a God who thinks that you are fine.
Utter bullshit. This is the problem I have with you that is rapidly heading Hellward - you impune my (and other non-inerrancists) motives continuously. Your mantra is "You just don't like what it says so you say it isn't true". We try to explain the real basis of our position, but you prefer to carry on with your impuning. I get this sort of false witness with Young Earth Creationists, and I can handle you just as well as I can handle those dweebs.
quote:
That you are comfortable with. I end up with a God who I cannot fathom; his awesome holiness or deep mercy. A God that I can't box.
How weird. We end up with the same one. But if I follow your rules, I end up with a God who is misogynistic, homophobic, capricious, internally contraditory, genocidal, and quite frankly the only awsome thing about Him is His gittishness. Now, you may think I should sit back and accept this God, who in the words of Terry Pratchett's Ephebian is "A real bastard of a God", but I'm going to try to find the real one, who I suspect is rather more like Jesus appears to have been.
Meanwhile, one step further down this line and I'll see you in Hell.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
What I completely fail to understand with those of you who reject the innerancy of the Bible is how you know anything about God at all. You reject what you don't like, and accept what you do like.
So how do you know anything about God? And how do you defend your theology against the accusation that you are making God in your own image?
I honstly don't understand this!!!
[ 20. February 2004, 19:58: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Goes for you as well Fish fish. Retract the "reject what you don't like" or enjoy the delights of Hell. Your choice.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What I completely fail to understand with those of you who reject the innerancy of the Bible is how you know anything about God at all. You reject what you don't like, and accept what you do like.
Why do I fecking bother. Post after post explaining my actual approach to Scripture, and still I get this crap flung back.
quote:
So how do you know anything about God? And how do you defend your theology against the accusation that you are making God in your own image?
I honstly don't understand this!!!
Then READ MY FECKING POSTS!
If you need it explaining any more clearly, Hell will be the only possible place.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Karl,
1) this was not directed at you but to people on this thread who EXPLICITLY SAID it was because they did not like the picture of God the OT that they would not accept it. I was merely pointing out that from an errancy point of view to pick some bits an not other requires some other agenda. I also already explained on the other thread why I don't buy the "Its not like jesus" line if you accept those accounts are errant too. But no, don't feel under obligation to answer that, just rant away if you want to.
2) But now you come to mention it, the last paragraph of your post sums up exactly the attitude I am talking about - I don't like him so I don't believe in Him
3) there is no evidence At ALL in the Gospels that Jesus thought the God of the Jewish Scriptures was a mistaken and inaccurate interpretation. In fact he claims to be Him, without qualification.
4) This is exactly the same phenomena as when you say "the Bible contradicts itself" and I say "no it doesn't". And you say "oh yes it does and I don't want to hear about why it doesn't" Only I haven't gone off the deep end yet.
5) I am SO sick of this discussion. "All views are welcome" unless you disagree with some of the old guard and their early 20th century liberal theology. In which case we'll call you to Hell and slag you off. Whatever.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
Lep,
I can only agree with Karl, in so much as you've totally caricatured my point of view.
I reject inerrancy and PSA, not because I want an easy ride from God, but because I want to believe that God is different from all the crap down here. That that shimmer of goodness I can feel deep down is God's image in me. I want a God I can turn to in genuine worship, not a sense of fear.
Jesus commanded that we judge 'false' teachers by their fruit. I may suggest you have criticised our thinking without once thinking of our 'fruit', I think this is why you've offended some of us.
In seeing God as pure Love and Mercy I don't write myself a free ticket to salvation - actually it means I realise how utter rubbish I am compared to Him and it makes me realise that no matter how many theoretical arguments I might bring up about being justified by faith alone, I become more aware of the obligation I have to live my life a certain way.
I am continually challenged by God, and by what the Bible says - really, did you think otherwise? I could point to many lukewarm inerrant-believing-PSA-secure Christians who provide a counter point that a particular philosophy/theology does not a true believer make.
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Right. The correct course is to accept a God who is revealed as being misogynistic, homophobic, capricious, internally contraditory, genocidal, and quite frankly the only awsome thing about Him is His gittishness.
Atheism suddenly looks very attractive.
Fortunately, so does finding out what God is really like.
I'm not on the verge of calling you to Hell because you disagree with me; I'm on the verge because I'm pissed off by your constant willful misrepresentation of my position.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What I completely fail to understand with those of you who reject the innerancy of the Bible is how you know anything about God at all. You reject what you don't like, and accept what you do like.
Speaking for myself, and probably many others in the category of those who "reject inerrancy", we know about God because the Bible doesn't have to be inerrant to speak truly about him. And, indeed, assuming the Bible to be inerrant doesn't stop it speaking falsely about him - as the discussion here about whether God ordered the massacre of innocents has highlighted.
And, of course, we're not picking and choosing based on our preferences. We're interpreting the whole witness of Scripture within a framework of what we consider to be the most reasonable approach to the true nature of Scripture ... which happens to be that inerrancy is a totally inappropriate paradigm to use.
And, it's not as though we're doing anything novel. Infact, in terms of historical Christianity, inerrancy is the novelty.
quote:
And how do you defend your theology against the accusation that you are making God in your own image?
Well, that's easy. We simply deny it. We are seeking to understand God as he is. We could just as easily ask you to defend yourself against the same accusation ... how do you defend the position that God is the sort of God who gives an inerrant Bible?
quote:
I honstly don't understand this!!!
Well, seeing as what you don't understand isn't the position of many of us that is hardly surprising. Find out what it is we actually believe, rather than base your arguments on assumptions of what you think we believe, and you may find you understand us better (agreement with us isn't required).
--------------------
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
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What I completely fail to understand with those of you who reject the innerancy of the Bible is how you know anything about God at all. You reject what you don't like, and accept what you do like.
So how do you know anything about God? And how do you defend your theology against the accusation that you are making God in your own image?
I honstly don't understand this!!!
Fish Fish,
Because, it's not about knowing, it's about walking with, and in the example of, our Lord Jesus. The Bible is profitable for this, but it's no substitute for walking with the Man Himself. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So we find bits of the OT questionable? If the OT was enough to root our theology in, well, we wouldn't have needed Jesus at all, would we? And Jesus was quite, quite critical about those who had the character of God all figured out from Scripture. White washed tombs, indeed...
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AB:
So we find bits of the OT questionable? If the OT was enough to root our theology in, well, we wouldn't have needed Jesus at all, would we? And Jesus was quite, quite critical about those who had the character of God all figured out from Scripture. White washed tombs, indeed...
AB
No - what he objected to was not their view of scripture, it was that they were spiritually dead, and didn't apply the scriptures to themselves.
Jesus has the highest view of scripture (and holiness) of anyone I've ever heard of -
quote:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17ff
quote:
Originally posted by AB:
Because, it's not about knowing, it's about walking with, and in the example of, our Lord Jesus. The Bible is profitable for this, but it's no substitute for walking with the Man Himself
But if you have no absolutely authoritative knowledge of God, other than your reasoning, or experience, then how can you claim to know God, or even know you are walking with him? For your experiences or reasoning are subjective, aren't they? But if we have an innerant Bible, we have an authoritative source to go to to seek the truth about God. We may interpret it differently - but so long as we are seeking what it says rather than wjhat we want it to say, we are seeking God's revelation of himself rather than our reasonings about him. And thus we can truly hope to be walking with the real God, and not a God made in our image.
[ 20. February 2004, 20:44: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
You (and I don't mean just you AB but all the people round here who play by your rules) ALWAYS seem to end with a God who thinks that you are fine. That you are comfortable with. I end up with a God who I cannot fathom; his awesome holiness or deep mercy. A God that I can't box.
This is one of the most patronising, ignorant and just plain wrong statements I have ever read aboard the Ship. I was going to deal with it in detail, but Karl beat me to it.
quote:
I just want to know God better.
Same here. When I read the Psalmist's words: One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life something inside me does a leap. Yes, that's the one thing that I want. Trouble is getting there (but that's another issue). However both of your statements, in context, carried the clear assumption that you have a mysterious God who you want to know better, and those of us who don't agree with you don't.
I have friends right across the Christian spectrum, from fluffy liberal through to hard line fundementalist. I can discuss the Bible with them, argue with them, disagree with them. Yet it is clear that they all have the same desire to know God better, and their love for God is shown in their lives by their love for the neighbours.
Leprechaun and FishFish I am struggling to love you, because I am commanded to do so in the pages of the Bible. But when you come out with statements like the above I find it very hard. I have no idea what you are like in "real life", all I know of you is what you have posted here. On that evidence, the fruit I see you bearing is arrogance, lack of love and judgementalism. The Bible contains warnings about all these things, and warns me to be on my guard against those who bear such fruits.
However I may well be wrong here. Can we leave things as, you are searching for God in your way, I am searching for God in mine, and then simply honour one another's search?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But if you have no absolutely authoritative knowledge of God, other than your reasoning, or experience, then how can you claim to know God, or even know you are walking with him?
I agree. Except, of course, in that we do have authoritative knowledge of and about God ... it's called the Bible. It's just not an inerrant Bible, it's the Bible I believe God wanted us to have.
--------------------
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
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
Fish Fish,
Accepted on the pharisees issue. It was a cheap shot typed without thinking it through. Forgive me.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But if you have no absolutely authoritative knowledge of God, other than your reasoning, or experience, then how can you claim to know God, or even know you are walking with him? For your experiences or reasoning are subjective, aren't they? But if we have an innerant Bible, we have an authoritative source to go to to seek the truth about God. We may interpret it differently - but so long as we are seeking what it says rather than wjhat we want it to say, we are seeking God's revelation of himself rather than our reasonings about him. And thus we can truly hope to be walking with the real God, and not a God made in our image.
Where does the spirit fit into all of this? Is he just there to ensure we don't misunderstand scripture? Or perhaps guide our consciences too? Prophetic revelations of God's will? My point is that we can relegate the spirit out of the equation completely if truth is found via human reasoning in a book alone.
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AB:
Fish Fish,
Accepted on the pharisees issue. It was a cheap shot typed without thinking it through. Forgive me.
No worries! Speaking for myself, I find it so easy to type first and think later. And the trouble with typing is the irony or humour etc is so easily lost when read in black and white by someone else. Anway - thats me! Cheers!!
quote:
Originally posted by AB:
Where does the spirit fit into all of this? Is he just there to ensure we don't misunderstand scripture? Or perhaps guide our consciences too? Prophetic revelations of God's will? My point is that we can relegate the spirit out of the equation completely if truth is found via human reasoning in a book alone.
I completely agree - we need the Spirit. But aren't we encouraged to test everything, or test every spirit? How can we do this is we don't have an authoritative standard by which to test.
If we don't test, or qualify what the Spirit says, we can get into some deep waters. So we need an innerant scripture to authoritatively help us judge right from wrong.
(In another thread I banged on forever about the Yorkshire Ripper thinking he was led by the Spirit - but he needed to test the 'spirit' against the Word. But I seemed to get into deep water cos everyone though I was saying liberals were the same as the Yorkshire Ripper. So I won't do that here! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I agree. Except, of course, in that we do have authoritative knowledge of and about God ... it's called the Bible. It's just not an inerrant Bible, it's the Bible I believe God wanted us to have.
But if its not inerrant, I don't see how can it be authoritative? Because if its flawed, the whole thing unravels. Anyone can dismiss anything they don't like in it becuase they can argue "that passage is a human error." Where does the authority lie with such a process? Can we claim it lies in the Bible?!
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
...people on this thread who EXPLICITLY SAID it was because they did not like the picture of God the OT that they would not accept it.
I am, I'm sure, one of these people.
God knows I've tried to reconcile these images. I've spent years in charismatic churches, in Christian Unions, in cell groups, in debates and discussions with friends, in private "Quiet Times" trying to come up with ways of understanding God, as he's revealed in the Bible, as a whole being.
I haven't been able to come up with any satisfactory answer.
Sure, I've come up with "answers", but they don't fit well. It's like trying to fit odd jigsaw pieces together.
God makes more sense to me when he's not some schizophrenic being for whom I'm trying to come up with excuses. Maybe he shouldn't make sense. I don't believe, however, I should find myself to be more compassionate than God. I don't believe I should find myself in a position where I'm questioning his morality.
As to making him more comfortable? I believe in a God who tells me to love my enemies, who tells me to put myself last, who tells me to see Christ in everyone I deal with, and treat them accordingly. That's not comfortable - it's damn nigh on impossible.
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Leprechaun and FishFish I am struggling to love you, because I am commanded to do so in the pages of the Bible. But when you come out with statements like the above I find it very hard. I have no idea what you are like in "real life", all I know of you is what you have posted here. On that evidence, the fruit I see you bearing is arrogance, lack of love and judgementalism. The Bible contains warnings about all these things, and warns me to be on my guard against those who bear such fruits.
I'm really sorry that's how I'm coming across. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) I don't want to be arrogant.
Can I, in my defence, suggest that my possition is not arrogant - its not a belief in me being totally right (cos I honestly believe I'm open to challenge and change), but a deffence of the Bible being right. I'm the first to admit I am flawed and a fool - but also want to be the first to be guided by that claims neither to be flawed or foolish.
Can I suggest, however, that an assumption to know what is right and wrong, and what is flawed, and what is clearly human error, is edging towards arrognace? I'm not saying you personally are arrogant - I have no idea about that. But I am suggesting that to assume personal authority rather than submit to an external authority (the scriptures) is akin to arrogance.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoo:
Maybe he shouldn't make sense.
To be honest, I'd be worried if my puny brain, the size of an orange, can ever even begin to make sense of the creator of the whole universe! If I could, I'd suspect he was a creation of my puny brain. The fact that he doesn't always make sense to my thick brain (eg the trinity!) makes revelation seem that bit more likely!!
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But you don't. You read selectively to find a God you like, and say that anything that doesn't fit in with him is a mistake.
On the contrary, we do exactly the same thing as you do: we start by deciding what God is like, and then any scripture passage that seems to agree with our point of view is evidence, and any that seems to weigh against it is difficult and needs to be understood in the light of blah blah blah. In short, it gets explained away. Whether it is explained away by calling it a "mistake" or by subtler means is hardly material.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I completely agree - we need the Spirit. But aren't we encouraged to test everything, or test every spirit? How can we do this is we don't have an authoritative standard by which to test.
So those who wrote and collected the New Testament -- what authoritative standard did they use? Clearly not the Spirit, by your account, since the Spirit must be tested by something else. But not the NT either because that is what was being tested. By the OT? The plain meaning of the NT contradicts the plain meaning of the OT in a thousand and one places.
Those who believe the NT to be "inerrant" never seem to have a reasonable theory about where it came from -- and we all know it didn't just fall out of heaven, in white leather and with two colours of ink, in 99AD.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
[Aside]
I have to say, I've never really bought the "you're not supposed to be able to understand it, but you must believe it" argument. It's always seemed a convenient excuse for sloppy thinking to me.
[/Aside]
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
[aside]
Stoo, isn't all thinking about God sloppy almost by definition?
[/aside]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But if its not inerrant, I don't see how can it be authoritative? Because if its flawed, the whole thing unravels. Anyone can dismiss anything they don't like in it becuase they can argue "that passage is a human error." Where does the authority lie with such a process? Can we claim it lies in the Bible?!
First, IMNSHO, the authority does not, and cannot, lie in the Bible, and to say that it does is nothing less than idolatry. It replaces the Holy Spirit of God with something else.
God gave us the Bible, and the Bible is authoritative, but that does not mean that it is inerrant.
Look, this can't be all that hard to understand. Authority and inerrancy are not the same thing. The Constitution of the United States is authoritative, if you live in the US. It's not inerrant. The editor I work with is authoritative. She's not inerrant. The fact that the Constitution and the editor are not inerrant does not in any way diminish their authority. Our system of government does not unravel because the Constitution is not inerrant. My work does not unravel because the editor is not inerrant.
Authority does not require inerrancy.
Saying that does not mean that we despise the authority, don't take it seriously, or think we can just pick and choose the parts we like.
Think about going to doctors. You don't think doctors are inerrant. Nor do you think they are lacking in authority. A board-certified pediatric neurologist is certainly an authority in their area of expertise, and you'd be stupid to dismiss what they told you just because you didn't like it or it made you uncomfortable. On the other hand, you'd also be stupid to believe everything they said, just because the doctor said it. In the first place, the doctor could be wrong. In the second place, the doctor could be right, and you could have misunderstood.
The fact that the doctor is not inerrant does not mean that "the whole thing unravels." Nor does the fact that the Bible is not inerrant mean that "the whole thing unravels."
Rather, it means that we trust the Holy Spirit to guide us into the Truth. He said he would, and we believe him.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Fishfish: quote:
I'm really sorry that's how I'm coming across. I don't want to be arrogant.
Thank you for replying so graciously.
I'm not going to post here any more as - for me - this is truly a Dead Horse; I'll just get on with life as best I know how. But I will say I was enormously impressed with Josephine's last post. Once again she produces an analogy that, to me, illuminates the whole process. How does she do it? (And why hasn't she written a book explaining basic Christian doctrine?)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Fair enough. Absiolutely right. I've never claimed to have the true interpretation. I'm just argueing that there is truth, and (in this thread) that the Bible is an innerant document, and so a great source for that truth. But I don't ever claim to be the sole authoritative interpreter of that truth!
There's a big difference between an innerance book and claiming to have an innerant interpretation of the book. The latter would be arrogance - but the former can be an oppinion held with humilty. Perhaps the confusion is why "conservatives" are often called arrogant?
But an inerrant book without an inerrant interpretation is about as useful as a foolproof safe full of gold without a key or a combination. The treasure is in there all right, but there's no way to get it out.
Although with the Bible it's trickier than that -- you may THINK you've gotten the truth out, but you can never be sure, because interpretations aren't inerrant, only the scriptures themselves. How is that more helpful than a Bible that may have errors? The interpretation is where the application lies -- and a Bible you can't apply to your life is pretty useless. So given that the interpretation and hence the application isn't inerrant, exactly what good does inerrancy do for us?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eanswyth
Ship's raven
# 3363
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
<snip> But I will say I was enormously impressed with Josephine's last post. Once again she produces an analogy that, to me, illuminates the whole process. How does she do it? (And why hasn't she written a book explaining basic Christian doctrine?)
I'll second the motion.
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
Sorry, got to go out for the day in 2 mins, so won't reply fully today.
But
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Authority does not require inerrancy.
True. And your analogies of other documents which aren'r innerant are useful analogies.
The trouble is, the Bible is not any other doccument. It claims to be God's revelations of himself. He claims to tell the truth. The Bible claims to be a truthful representation of God's word, faithfully recorded, and fully inspired, even breathed by God. So its different from your man made document analogies.
So while authority doesn't require innerancy, if the Bible is innerant, then it has more authority than any other document.
And yes, (in answer to someone else!) we will constantly have to refine our interpretation as the interpretation is not innerant - but if we're aiming to get that interpretation honed, then we're all going in the same direction in seeking the truth extracted from the Word.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Rather, it means that we trust the Holy Spirit to guide us into the Truth. He said he would, and we believe him.
How does the HS guide you?
How do you test what he says?
He tells us to test- and gives us the tool to test with. Abandon the innerancy of the tool, and you abandon the full authority, introduce the right of the individual to pick what (s)he likes, and thus lose the authority.
Sorry not responded to evrything. Really must go...
[ 21. February 2004, 07:54: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Abandon the innerancy of the tool, and you abandon the full authority, introduce the right of the individual to pick what (s)he likes, and thus lose the authority.
p.s. IMHO (avoiduing arrogance!!! )
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
Fish: I'm not sure that the situation of abandoning inerrancy is as dire as you proclaim. Crossing the line between authority and inerrancy does not necessarily set the reader up for any greater risk of error, but does set the reader up for different kinds of error. An "inerrantist" approach to the Bible can lead the reader to assume that bombing abortion clinics is okay, or even a divine calling. Of course similarly an "errantist" approach to the Bible could reinforce the reader's own preconceptions with equally disastrous results. How ever we approach the Bible, without a Divine miracle we will muck up at some point.
By assuming that there may be errors in the Bible, the process of interpreting scripture simply includes a few extra possible understandings of a passage.
Having said that, while I am probably moving slowly towards a more open view of scripture, when push comes to shove I guess I'm an inerrantist. Partly for some of the reasons given throughout this thread (not that I could bring myself to thoroughly read it all - sorry, it's just so damn long!) But the main reason I suspect that I default to inerrancy is (confession time) simple convenience. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) I find it quite convenient to be able to point to a rule carved in stone. And frankly, that's not a very good reason.
There is, of course, also the fear of cocking up. Somewhere at the back of my mind I'm sure I'd rather mistakenly think that God was serious about sin (and fitting that into an understanding of His perfect loving) than mistakenly think that He was softer than He actually is. A variation on Pascal's wager, it's better to be too strict and miss a bit of fun than to be too lax and miss the boat to heaven.
Which I guess is all a way of saying I have issues that aren't exactly conducive to clear thinking on the matter. That's not to say that the more objectie sounding arguments that I won't reproduce here have less merit. But it is frustrating how many complications subjectivity can create in such an issue.
But I'll keep watching this thread and wrestling with God. And hey, I'm reading Leviticus at the moment so if that doesn't drive the need to view scripture as inerrant from me then I don't know what will. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So while authority doesn't require innerancy, if the Bible is innerant, then it has more authority than any other document.
I'd go farther, FishFish. I'd say that the Bible has more authority than any other document. The fact that it's an icon of the Most High God, divinely inspired, and given to and accepted by the Church, is all the authority it needs. You don't have to add inerrancy to it to make it more than it is.
(And, for the record, I'm neither an errantist nor an inerrantist. Those are not categories that I find useful, nor are they categories the Church has historically used in understanding the Holy Scriptures.)
quote:
And yes, (in answer to someone else!) we will constantly have to refine our interpretation as the interpretation is not innerant - but if we're aiming to get that interpretation honed, then we're all going in the same direction in seeking the truth extracted from the Word.
If you and I are both seeking the truth, the one who Is the Truth said we'd find Him. Whether the Bible is inerrant or not is irrelevant to His promise, it seems to me.
quote:
How does the HS guide you?
How do you test what he says?
He tells us to test- and gives us the tool to test with. Abandon the innerancy of the tool, and you abandon the full authority, introduce the right of the individual to pick what (s)he likes, and thus lose the authority.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that we should use the Bible to test God? May it never be so! We don't test God!
Or are you saying that use the Bible to test the Bible? That's like saying I'll use this scale to weigh this scale -- absurd.
Furthermore, I have never said (nor have the "errantists" on this thread argued) that the individual has the right to pick and choose what he likes from the Holy Scriptures. Your argument is a non sequiter, which fact has been pointed out to you many times.
I am not an errantist.
I do not simply pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept as written, and which to accept an alternative explanation for, any more than you do.
For you to suggest such is not only an error, it's an insult.
Now, you asked how we know what the Holy Spirit is saying -- do you want an answer? I can provide one. Or do you want to continue bearing false witness against your brothers and sisters in Christ?
Let me know.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
(And, for the record, I'm neither an errantist nor an inerrantist. Those are not categories that I find useful, nor are they categories the Church has historically used in understanding the Holy Scriptures.)
I'd have to agree that the terminology is unnatural and divisive. This factor contributes to my own struggle to see which side of the "line" I fit on. I guess from the inerrant doctrinal position the line looks like it is there, as the inerrant position is an all or nothing position. From my current position it's a rather wide fuzzy line. In my previous post I used the terminology as a convenient label, but it didn't really reflect the issue as I hoped it would (that bloody convenience thing again, getting in the way. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) )
To Fish Fish;
It seems to me that you have a struggle believing that God is big enough to communicate with other Christians without having the hammer of inerrant scripture to whack them with. It comes across like you don't trust Him, and so need the hefty, harder to refute words carved in stone. I don't know if this is truly what you are feeling, but it's what I'm naturally reading from your posts.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fen
Shipmate
# 4052
|
Posted
Inerrancy is something I've defended to the hilt in the past (on another website), I've followed this discussion for a while & just wanted to throw one thing in, on a point that often seems to slip by without comment.
quote:
And, it's not as though we're doing anything novel. Infact, in terms of historical Christianity, inerrancy is the novelty.
How far back do we need to go for it not to be a "novelty"?
quote:
"For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. [manuscript] is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it."
Augustine, To Jerome, Epistle 82, 1:3
I'm no historian, so maybe you can put me right here, but looking at this, the concept of inerrancy seems to me to be as much of a "novelty" as the Trinity or the Incarnation; maybe it didn't get a creed all to itself but maybe it just didn't need one at the time like those two doctrines did. (From the little that I know, I thought that such disputes as led to the formation of the creeds were due to varying interpretations of scripture anyway, rather than either side rejecting their authority.) If no-one before Augustine stated it quite so explicitly then couldn't it have been an assumption; inerrancy wouldn't need to be stated until someone suggested errancy? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
I know Augustine wasn't inerrant; but I like this approach to the scriptures. Particularly the last 7 words...
In Jesus,
Fen
[ 22. February 2004, 02:46: Message edited by: Fen ]
Posts: 103 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
After the storm of controversy on Friday night, I'm peeping my head above the parapet again to say a couple of things.
First, I wrote
quote:
You (and I don't mean just you AB but all the people round here who play by your rules) ALWAYS seem to end with a God who thinks that you are fine. That you are comfortable with. I end up with a God who I cannot fathom; his awesome holiness or deep mercy. A God that I can't box.
This was patronising. It came out wrong. Its the sort of thing that you can say in a conversation because you can nuance it more, and go further to explain what you mean, not post on a website. In saying that, we are on a website chat here, so it was stupid of me to even go there. I certainly did not mean to imply (as its clear that I did) that no one except me is ever challenged by the Bible. No excuses. Sorry.
Secondly,
Karl, I am sorry for putting forward the same argument more than once, and for annoying you. BUT (and sorry there's a but in this sentence) there were people advancing the argument that they "couldn't/wouldn't/didn't want" to accept this historicity of the OT just because of its content, on this thread. Maybe I misunderstood but that's what they seemed to be saying. So please, if people don't want to have the "pick and choose" argument levelled against them, then please don't say that's what you are doing. KLB, I know that's not what you were saying, so I didn't mean to include you in my blunderbuss approach. After that I just got carried away.
Thirdly,
On the OT stuff, I don't buy the alternative "the OT is overrruled or radically reinterpreted by Jesus" approach. This is for two reasons
1) It requires you to take a view that the Gospels and Gospel writers were more truthful or less errant than any writers of the OT. Is this just because they are later, just because they are accounts of Jesus life? I really don't get this. It can't be just because they are later, because I think a lot of the stuff people are objecting to as inconsistent with the Gospels comes up elsewhere in the NT, in later documents..can anyone explain this?
2) I read all of Matthew's Gospel yesterday and noticed a couple of things. First, (and I noted this down) Jesus and/or Matthew and JTB make at least as many references to/threats of judgement, as they make commands to love or descriptions of love. So I can't see that the idea that Jesus is abrogating that aspect of the OT at all. Secondly, I can find no evidence that Jesus wanted to try and overrule even the most fanciful parts of the OT, which surely would have been something he would have made a big deal of if he had wanted to. Even in the "but I say to you" passages in Chapter 5, he prefaces it all with a stern warning about not wanting to take away a single jot from the law and the prophets, and he refers to Jonah as an authority, he talks about the judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah. The only hint that he seeks to do anything to change the revelation of God in the OT was in the "new wineskins" passage, and even that is fairly oblique.
In short, I do think that if Jesus was attempting to make such a change to the way we understand God, he surely would have made a bigger deal of it. I certainly don't think such a wholesale rewriting of the understanding of God of the OT can be justified from the text as I think people are suggesting here.
Finally, can I just ask for tolerance. In the same way that many of you seem to be coming from a background of accepting all views as valid, I am coming from a background where people talk in absolutes and are not offended by others doing that. I have been trying (honestly) to modify my approach for interacting with people here, and sometimes can't quite express it as I want to in those terms. I hope, even though people like mine and FF's views are different, they are still welcome here, so you'll bear with our way of discussing even when it gets on your nerves, as we'll try to approach you on your terms.
Pax.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fen:
quote:
And, it's not as though we're doing anything novel. Infact, in terms of historical Christianity, inerrancy is the novelty.
How far back do we need to go for it not to be a "novelty"?
[followed by quote from Augustine]
I think things are a lot more complex than that. I've been trying to find his actual words online (without luck I'm afraid), but in Genesis according to the Literal Sense I.39 Augustine warns people not to bring discredit on the Christian faith by treating the Bible as a source of astronomical information non-Christians now to be incorrect. Clearly, Augustine didn't consider Genesis to be inerrant in respect to astronomical truths. Similar things can be said about people such as Origin, who appear at first to hold to Biblical Inerrancy, but on closer inspection seem to hold a position somewhat different from what many people today take to be meant by the phrase. They tend to hold to inerrancy in the Bible teaching theological truth, but are not pressing that inerrancy to scientific or historical truth.
quote:
I like this approach to the scriptures. Particularly the last 7 words... ("I myself have failed to understand it.")
I, likewise, particularly like those last seven words. They are, of course, true whether or not one accepts Biblical inerrancy.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
So those who wrote and collected the New Testament -- what authoritative standard did they use? Clearly not the Spirit, by your account, since the Spirit must be tested by something else. But not the NT either because that is what was being tested. By the OT? The plain meaning of the NT contradicts the plain meaning of the OT in a thousand and one places.
Those who believe the NT to be "inerrant" never seem to have a reasonable theory about where it came from -- and we all know it didn't just fall out of heaven, in white leather and with two colours of ink, in 99AD.
The NT was compiled by the church recognising the writings of the Apostles - those who had met and were commisioned by the risen JC. The early church didn't impose itself on the texts, so much as recognise which were authentic writings of those commisioned by Jesus. In a sense, they discovered the NT! Just as, I guess, Newton discovered gravity. This discoverey of the NT makes sense when we see the NT writings hang together, and the other non-NT writings are so completely differnet in style and content.
So, no it didn't fall from heaven ready bound in leather. But it was sort of discovered and recognised over time.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
An "inerrantist" approach to the Bible can lead the reader to assume that bombing abortion clinics is okay, or even a divine calling.
I'm sorry, I can't get my head round this one! How does a belief in innerancy lead someone to murder?! The person committed to innerancy must take seriously the command not to murder. Where is the command to take the life of an abortionist?!
On the other hand, those who do not accept innerancy assume the right of judgment on moral issues, ignoring the moral judgments in the Bible that they find unnaceptable, and so IMHO are more likely to become the murderers!
quote:
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
By assuming that there may be errors in the Bible, the process of interpreting scripture simply includes a few extra possible understandings of a passage.
No, its much bigger than that I'm afraid. If one assumes errors, one assumes the ability to spot the errors, and the right to choose which bits of the Bible you find authoritative, and which you want to dismiss as down to human error. The whole authority of scripture unravels before your eyes. Declare one tiny bit of Scripture in error, and we permit anyone to dismiss any commandment they like as human error.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I do not simply pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept as written, and which to accept an alternative explanation for, any more than you do.
For you to suggest such is not only an error, it's an insult.
I'm afraid there is a difference. I am assumming that the Bible contains no mistakes. So I come to it submitting to it as God revealed, perfect, holy, divine authority to tell me about God and Jesus and salvation etc.
But if one believes there are errors, one has to, in some sense, assume authority over the text to discern which parts are mistakes and which we can thus ignore. If one believes there are errors, but decides not to discern them or make judgments, then I'd suggest one is being rather stupid - submitting blindly to a document which you belive to be flawed.
So I'm sorry if you find it insulting when this difference is discussed - but I can't see how there is not a fundamental difference here.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Now, you asked how we know what the Holy Spirit is saying -- do you want an answer? I can provide one. Or do you want to continue bearing false witness against your brothers and sisters in Christ?
Yes please - I'd love to know!!! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
To Fish Fish;
It seems to me that you have a struggle believing that God is big enough to communicate with other Christians without having the hammer of inerrant scripture to whack them with. It comes across like you don't trust Him, and so need the hefty, harder to refute words carved in stone. I don't know if this is truly what you are feeling, but it's what I'm naturally reading from your posts.
I'm sorry that's the impression you have. In my defence I'd say that I trust a much bigger and more sovereign God than you give me credit for. I trust a God who is able to communicate clearly and has chosen to do so. But if I abandon innerancy, I weaken God, saying he is either unable or unwilling to commmunicate clearly to us.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
After the storm of controversy on Friday night, I'm peeping my head above the parapet again to say a couple of things...
...Pax.
I want to simply put ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) - but then I'll be accused of idolatry, and thus inconsistancy with the Bible. But I guess you know what I mean.
Lep -
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Declare one tiny bit of Scripture in error, and we permit anyone to dismiss any commandment they like as human error. quote:
Not true at all, as I'll show in a moment.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by josephine:
Now, you asked how we know what the Holy Spirit is saying -- do you want an answer? I can provide one. Or do you want to continue bearing false witness against your brothers and sisters in Christ?
Yes please - I'd love to know!!! [/QB]
What I'm about to explain is how the Orthodox understand Holy Scriptures. I'm neither theologian nor saint, so my explanation is not inerrant. And there are others on this thread who are not Orthodox; I'm not pretending to speak for them. They might have a different explanation.
Caveats aside, then, in the Orthodox Church, we believe that God has completely and perfectly revealed himself in the Person of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. In his Incarnation he gave us everything we need to know him perfectly. There was nothing left to be revealed. It's all there for us to see; nothing is hidden, nothing is held back.
Unfortunately, the fact that we're all stupid and sinful means that we don't always "get it," so in his mercy and love, he gave us the Holy Spirit, with the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. The Spirit gives us many things to make sure we have what we need to get it right -- the liturgies and prayers of the Church, the holy icons, the lives of the saints, and most particularly, the Holy Scriptures, which are the crown and glory of Holy Tradition. The Scriptures, the written Word of God, are the most detailed and most intricate icon we have of our Lord Jesus, the living Word of God.
But, as was noted by St. Vincent of Lerins over 1500 years ago, there are as many different ways of understanding the Holy Scriptures as there are people reading them. So how do we know whether we understand it correctly or not?
Because God revealed himself fully, without holding anything back, we are to prefer the understandings of the Scriptures the Church has held from the beginning to anything new. That is the principal we call antiquity, and it's why we reject novelty. If a doctrine suddenly appears -- as the Rapture did, about 100 years or so ago -- we reject it as a novelty. If it were true, we believe the Holy Spirit would have made sure we got it a long time ago.
The next principal is universality. That simply means that, since the Holy Spirit is given to the Church as a whole, to all Christians, if you have one person, or a small group, teaching X, and the rest of the Church believes Y, then Y is more likely to be right. God doesn't play favorites. He doesn't withhold the truth from one group of Christians and reveal it to another. It's all there for everyone to see.
It was on the basis of antiquity and universality that I realized I had always been wrong about the saints and about icons. I had always rejected them because, based on my own understanding of the Scriptures (colored, as it was, by my experience living in a late-twentieth-century democracy, where I bow to no one). But then I realized that the Church had, from the very beginning, honored the saints, and had had icons from the beginning. And those practices had never, ever died out, but had been part of the universal practice, faith, and experience of the Church. My opinion was tested by the Church, by the Holy Spirit, and found wanting. So, rather than deciding to hold on to what I preferred, and what made sense to me, I rejected what I liked, and embraced something foreign and strange, because it was true.
The third principal used to understand the Holy Scriptures is consensus -- to be explicit, the consensus of those who have clearly led a blameless and holy life, who by their lives and by their deaths, they showed us that they truly knew God. If there is a question that can't be answered by antiquity and universality, then you look to the saints, the holy ones, and see if there is a consensus in their believes, if there is something that all of them held to be true. If so, you should prefer the doctrines they held to anything that someone like me believes.
This process, far from leading us to dismiss anything we don't like as error, leads us to the truth, even when (as it usually is) the truth is uncomfortable, because it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and it is tested, bit by bit, by the experience of the whole Church.
If you want to see the outcome of using the process, I'd suggest you read the life of Fr. Arseny of Russia, or St. John of San Francisco, or St. Innocent of Alaska. They show you where our process leads.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
Fish Fish,
Just because one does not use an inerrant Bible to make moral decisions, it does not make that person immoral. It simply means their moral choices are founded on something else - and it doesn't mean that something else can't have authority either.
For me, I am happy to base my moral decisions on the commandments of Jesus to love my God with all my mind, body and soul, and to love my neighbour as myself. I don't need an inerrant Bible to trust those commandments as I see them mirrored in life as the way we should live. All of my moral choices (as Jesus indicates) should be based on this.
Lep,
I'll hold my hand up and say that I chose to reject inerrancy because I couldn't reconcile bits of the OT with my faith. It came down to a simple choice of preserving my faith or losing it. Please don't assume I took this decision lightly (and that hasn't been implied, I'm just heading you off), because it involved a long black 'night' of the soul (lasting months) an awful lot of a prayer and was, in all intents and purposes, a last resort.
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
Thanks for that Josephine. I guess I agree with a lot of what you say.
My resonse is to say there is a danger in giving the church the authority that you do. For example...
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The next principal is universality. That simply means that, since the Holy Spirit is given to the Church as a whole, to all Christians, if you have one person, or a small group, teaching X, and the rest of the Church believes Y, then Y is more likely to be right. God doesn't play favorites. He doesn't withhold the truth from one group of Christians and reveal it to another. It's all there for everyone to see.
If we go for a simple majority, then indulgences were absolutely fine and dandy because most people used them in Medievil times, and the reformation was mistaken. (Though of course, as Orthadox, I guess you might think the reformation was indeed mistaken).
If the church is the interpreting authoirty, then we can make mistakes like this. Churches tend to be led - and leaders are sinful individuals who can easily lead the majority astray.
So, I think a preferable model is to make Scripture the authority. If its innerancy is assumed, then we "sit under" scripture, and seek scripture to interpret scripture. So rather than the church being the arbiter, the Bible is. And where there are disagreements, we need to all seek to submit again to the Bible, to assess again our preconceptions, and seek again to work out what its saying. Thats hard work, and disagreements can arrise (as did with the doctrine of the Trinity) - but when scripture is the authority, unanimity is more likely then when the church or human wisdom is supreme (as happened with the doctrine of the Trinity).
[ 22. February 2004, 16:52: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If we go for a simple majority, then indulgences were absolutely fine and dandy because most people used them in Medievil times, and the reformation was mistaken.
I think you might need to widen your perspective. Indulgances might have been acceptable for a majority of Christians in Western Europe just prior to the Reformation, but in terms of the history of Christianity prior to that and including Christians outwith Western Europe (including the Orthodox) then you may well find that even a "simple majority" wouldn't be met - and if you weigh in with the "spiritual depth" of those who cmae before or since (much theological thought behind indulgances seems, to me, to be very lightweight) then the case for indulgances becomes very weak indeed.
The Reformation, in many senses, was not a sudden swing to sola scriptura, but a rediscovery of earlier theological thought - which happened to include a greater emphasis on Scripture. If Orthodoxy was better known in Western Europe I'd guess that many Reformers might well have headed in that direction.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
