Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
The belief I have in God and the scriptures is independent of any other experience in my life. There is nothing or no one in whom I give such trust and faith. Why? Because there is nothing else I consider above failings or inconsistencies or reliance. It sometimes seems odd that I can be so skeptical and unreliant on everything else in life, and yet be so unswerving convinced and confident in the Bible. It's not really my nature to be so trusting, so it must be supernatural.

---

Grits, it is interesting that it is this way for so many people, and not for so many others. I feel the way that you do. To me it is inconceivable that the Bible might be untrue. And yet I am an Ivy-League-educated skeptic in most areas of life, committed to evidence and what passes for rigorous thinking. No explaining it, I guess.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I guess I am just not of the mindset that the Bible has to prove itself, nor offer "evidence". That sends one off in a different direction from faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems natural to me that there would be a continuing tension between the evident unbelievability of many things in the Bible, and its own interlocking claims of revealed truth.

---

I do not think I disbelieve any of the things you think I disbelieve. I suspect we're talking past each other entirely.

quote:

---

The way that this seems to go, in my experience, is that it is fairly easy to hold the kind of stance you describe if you don't have to deal that much with the various texts. But the more you get wrapped up in biblical studies the harder it gets to tolerate this tension.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
Maybe we can "unpack" that a little bit, John. (I've always wanted to say that on the Ship!)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
You know, that's always been one of my bugaboos -- how one can feel they have the discernment and the authority to accept or reject certain parts of the Bible. You know my biggest objection to that, though? They want to reject the parts that don't fit their particular theology.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by samara:
The stance I am describing is not understanding people saying "all-or-nothing" is the only stance possible. I have not described my stance to the Bible. Having had many perplexing conversations with inerrantists, I want to know what we agree is logically possible before moving on to what our stance on the Bible is.

---

quote:

---

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God... You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
Maybe we can "unpack" that a little bit, John. (I've always wanted to say that on the Ship!)

---

Right after the moratorium, too. Tsk.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
We just have to be open-minded enough and vulnerable enough to approach it in a completely different way than we do other texts.

---

Hi Grits,

I too want to use the word 'unpack' in defiance of Sine's moratorium

As I said, I wasn't brought up in a Christian tradition that treated the Bible differently from other texts. I would approach the Bible the same way I would approach the Quran or Book of Mormon (this is not to say that I consider Islam or Mormonism as true as Christianity!)

Is your belief that the Bible must be approached differently from other texts a foundational belief for you, or is it something you conclude must be true from other beliefs?

--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray

Posted                       

quote:

---

I like what John says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God... You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is an awesome responsibility, trying to recognize the Spirit of truth. But it's got to be possible.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I guess I've missed the part about Freddy rejecting the Epistles. So, what parts does he accept?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
You know, that's always been one of my bugaboos -- how one can feel they have the discernment and the authority to accept or reject certain parts of the Bible. You know my biggest objection to that, though? They want to reject the parts that don't fit their particular theology. I can see where the Epistles would fall into that category.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by samara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems natural to me that there would be a continuing tension between the evident unbelievability of many things in the Bible, and its own interlocking claims of revealed truth.

---

I do not think I disbelieve any of the things you think I disbelieve. I suspect we're talking past each other entirely.

quote:

---

The way that this seems to go, in my experience, is that it is fairly easy to hold the kind of stance you describe if you don't have to deal that much with the various texts. But the more you get wrapped up in biblical studies the harder it gets to tolerate this tension.

---

The stance I am describing is not understanding people saying "all-or-nothing" is the only stance possible. I have not described my stance to the Bible. Having had many perplexing conversations with inerrantists, I want to know what we agree is logically possible before moving on to what our stance on the Bible is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by samara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, how can you accept ideas as valid from a source you find fallible?

---

I almost don't understand this question. Almost, because I might have asked it myself at one point in life. But I don't really understand the "all-or-nothing" stance. I accept ideas as valid from all kinds of fallible sources. I read an scientific article, say, and with no assumptions about the infallibility of the author accept it or reject as it fits with everything else I know. Or conditionally accept it and hie me to the research stacks.

My attitude to the Bible is not this cavalier, but surely, at least in other circumstances, this idea of weighing evidence is not strange to anyone?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Why can't I convince myself that it would be possible for me (I mean no implication for anyone else) to hold to Christinity whilst rejecting some parts of the Bible? Why can't I do it?

---

There is a story about a divorced man who was given a lie detector test; and was asked whether he was married.

"No", he said.

But the polygraph showed that he was lying.

One researcher asked "Why is it showing that he's lying? He knows that he is divorced."

The other researcher explained: "He's Catholic, so in his heart he still believes he is married, the poor bastard".

If you had never been told that you must accept or reject the entire Bible would it even occur to you to think that way? Do you approach any other collection of documents in that way?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
I too want to use the word 'unpack' in defiance of Sine's moratorium.

---

quote:

---

Is your belief that the Bible must be approached differently from other texts a foundational belief for you, or is it something you conclude must be true from other beliefs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But, as a principle, is that not what non-inerrantists are trying to do when they come to the Bible? To see what the Spirit of God is saying through a text which, I would argue, never claims inerrancy for itself*. It's not that we edit the text, determining which bits are OK and which are not. It doesn't work like that, IMO. Rather, it's a matter of encountering the risen Lord by the Holy Spirit through the scriptural record. The whole concept of "editing" scripture, as you perceive non-inerrantists doing, seems to me uncomfortably like treating the bible as a rule book, rather than a place in which such encounters can occur. In a way, whether the Bible was inspired in its' writing is of lesser objective importance than whether it is inspired in its' reading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Now I'm not an inerrantist, so it isn't really as big a deal for me what's in and what's out, but how do you regard, say, I Maccabees, or Sirach?

Bible? or not?

And if not, why did Luther (and his followers) get to change the definition of what was and what was not "in the bible", and what was and what was not inerrant?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I still wonder, though. why so many believe in an inspired reading and not an inspired writing.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
In other words, there are two different questions here. One is whether there is such a thing as authoritative written divine revelation. The other is whether this or that particular piece of writing is part of that authoritative written divine revelation. We can agree about the one without agreeing about the other.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
A third is, is there a hierarchy of sorts within the authoritative written divine revelation, or are all parts on equal footing? Orthodoxy in a sense "values" the gospels more than the epistles, but both are seen as Holy Writ.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:


In my denomination the theological writings of Swedenborg are viewed as divine revelation and authoritative on the same level as Scripture. The writings of the early church, and the decisions of councils, by contrast, are not seen that way at all, only as individual fallible opinions which may or may not be true.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
In my denomination the theological writings of Swedenborg are viewed as divine revelation and authoritative on the same level as Scripture. The writings of the early church, and the decisions of councils, by contrast, are not seen that way at all, only as individual fallible opinions which may or may not be true.

---

I don't mean to sound rude, but why?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Cheesy, do you mean why accept Swedenborg, or why consider the writings of the early church, and the decisions of the councils, to be fallible?

Assuming the first, I guess that it is because I have read the books and think that they offer explanations of the Bible and Christian doctrine that hang together as a consistent and rational system. I imagine that most of us feel the same way about whatever system we have accepted.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Now I'm not an inerrantist, so it isn't really as big a deal for me what's in and what's out, but how do you regard, say, I Maccabees, or Sirach?

Bible? or not?

And if not, why did Luther (and his followers) get to change the definition of what was and what was not "in the bible", and what was and what was not inerrant?

---

I'm sure you are familiar with the writings contained in the books which Luther deleted. I guess I've never thought they showed much similarity to other biblical writings. Do you? Are they historical? Certainly. Accurate? Mostly, I imagine. I know they were also set in OT times, so they would be more non-essential to salvation, anyway, I suppose.

John, my very simplistic reasoning has always been the belief that God would not withhold any pertinent text from us, and that if it belongs in the Bible then surely it would be in everyone's Bible. I mean no disrespect to those who include the Apocrypha in their teachings, so I hope this doesn't read that way. If it does, I apologize.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Cheesy, do you mean why accept Swedenborg, or why consider the writings of the early church, and the decisions of the councils, to be fallible?

Assuming the first, I guess that it is because I have read the books and think that they offer explanations of the Bible and Christian doctrine that hang together as a consistent and rational system. I imagine that most of us feel the same way about whatever system we have accepted.

---

Both I suppose. Most Christians would be very wary about holding anything up to be authoritative on the same level as Scripture.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
Well, I suppose the fact that I don't support canonization of any kind (other than the sainthood that all believers receive) makes it easy for me, actually. My thoughts on it all would have to precede Luther by centuries, when the original texts were being pulled together -- the Septuagint, gospels, epistles of Paul, etc.

I suppose it all boils down to authorship. If one feels, as I do, that the only true apostles, the only men who truly received and carried the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit were the original 12 and Paul, that pretty well clenches the texts we'd consider valid. I actually think that is the bottom line for some people; at least, it is for me.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Ummm -- the Apochrypha are OT, not NT, so by definition, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, their authors could not have been apostles. Not sure how your bottom line works with the OT.

---

quote:

---

I know they were also set in OT times, so they would be more non-essential to salvation, anyway, I suppose.

---

quote:

---

Everyone agreed until Luther that Sirach was scripture in the same way Job, Proverbs and Psalms were. Most Christians today still accept that Sirach is scripture in this way. So if Luther could exclude Sirach (not because of authorship, but because of a misunderstanding about the relationship between the Septuagint and the much later masoretic text), who can exclude what for any other reason -- and how binding on Christians are these exclusions. And how can we tell today what might turn out tomorrow not to have been scripture at all -- like those poor deluded christians before Luther who didn't know Sirach wasn't scripture -- or, indeed, all those poor deluded christians after Luther who deny his authority to define scripture and still consider Sirach to be scripture.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Ummm -- the Apochrypha are OT, not NT, so by definition, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, their authors could not have been apostles. Not sure how your bottom line works with the OT.

---

Exactly, which is why I made this statement earlier:

quote:

---

I know they were also set in OT times, so they would be more non-essential to salvation, anyway, I suppose.

---

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

[qb]Everyone agreed until Luther that Sirach was scripture in the same way Job, Proverbs and Psalms were. Most Christians today still accept that Sirach is scripture in this way. So if Luther could exclude Sirach (not because of authorship, but because of a misunderstanding about the relationship between the Septuagint and the much later masoretic text), who can exclude what for any other reason -- and how binding on Christians are these exclusions. And how can we tell today what might turn out tomorrow not to have been scripture at all -- like those poor deluded christians before Luther who didn't know Sirach wasn't scripture -- or, indeed, all those poor deluded christians after Luther who deny his authority to define scripture and still consider Sirach to be scripture.

---

Maybe this would be a good time for me to query what, if any, changes in the plan of salvation would be involved if one did include all these excluded volumes?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Fair enough, except that you were the one to introduce the issue of apostolic authorsihip in a discussion about the Apochrypha.

---

quote:

---

One would then be inclined to ask what would be lost of God's plan of salvation if one decided to rule out parts of Exodus (chapter 33 I think it is comes to mind), or some of Proverbs (the ones that comment on how important it is to charge high enough rates of interest to ensure the lender gets a good pay-back) or either (but not both) of Kings (1+2) and Chronicles (1+2), or for that matter any 2 of the minor prophets just about chosen at random -- I'm really not sure how much of God's plan is revealed only in Zephaniah, for example.

---

quote:

---

You see the problem is that one one starts excluding bits one doesn't like or doesn't feel necessary (and why are they not necessary, if not to you, perhaps to someone else 500 years ago or in the future), one is setting oneself as the judge and arbiter of what is scripture. Saying to oneself -- that bit matters because I think it reveals something of God's plan, but I think that part doesn't because right now sitting here I don't think it does that -- is in my view making oneself the judge over and of scripture.

---

quote:

---

And when one does that, calling scripture "inerrant" is meaningless, and its authority is made nil -- because it ceases to be something apart from the individual and becomes something the individual can play with and use or ignore at will.

---

quote:

---

I'm a lot more comfortable with accepting the judgement and experience of the church about what writings were revelations of God's will. Making that kind of decision is, in my view, one of the things Christ wanted the church to do.

---

quote:

---

And I really would like an answer to my question about how anyone can have any assurance in what is and what is not scripture if individuals can decide to throw out bits for sincere reasons but based on false information -- or just because the feel like it -- if enough people are willing to take their word for it. It would seem to me that agreeing some bits are not scripture after 1,200 years of them being accepted as such is playing some awefully nasty games -- if true, it means that those who believed for 1,200 years were wrong and cruelly misled. And that's a judgement I'd be loath to make about someone else's faith, when it was based on what everyone knew and agreed at the time.

---

quote:

---

It means that a Roman Catholic, for example, can say the Bible is inerrant, referring to part of Sirach, while you, saying the same thing, mean it is not -- and you believe the epistles are inerrant while someone else may not -- and, indeed, you (and I FWIW) may believe parts of the Gospels are inerrant while others may not. And yet we might all be saying, quite sincerely, that "the bible is inerrant".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by samara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I still wonder, though. why so many believe in an inspired reading and not an inspired writing.

---

I can't speak for everyone, but I believe in both. It's just that what most inerrantists mean by inspired writing is not the same as what I mean. So it's hard to communicate at all, sometimes.

---

quote:

---

Almost every group has some written texts or creed that specifies rules about beliefs, worship, etc. that they tend to turn to even above and beyond the Bible itself. One would have to believe in divine intervention for those writings, as well, I would imagine.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
and I thought, that's it, that's the difference. I don't think of "inspiration" as being "intervention." I think of inspiration as being pretty normal, something that happens all the time, whereas I get the idea that Grits' idea of inspiration is a lot more elevated and outside the norm.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
...to other books where the writer appears to be stating his own opinion.

---

Very subtle, Freddy. I know that's how many people think of Paul and his writings. I see Paul as an apostle ordained by Christ Himself to continue and spread His mission, and I have to believe that his hand and words were guided as much as those of the gospel recorders.

I, too, appreciate your insight, Ruth. Yes, I imagine a great deal of what we consider to be vast differences in our beliefs really hinge on our interpretation of certain aspects of our faith.

I think about passages, such as this one at the end of II Peter:

quote:

---

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty... And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
A lot of inerrantist theology sounds to me like it was written by cops taking statements, and assessing potential witnesses. I think we need to grasp that the Biblical concept of "witness" is much richer than, and maybe not much to do with, The Bill, or Cagney and Lacey.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I would have to take exception to the statement that every Christian was reading and following these writings for 1,200 years and allowed Luther to throw them out. There's no way you can make me believe that. People wouldn't stand for that now; I don't believe they would have then -- unless it was meant to be. It's been over 1,200 years since they were omitted. too.

---

quote:

---

I know you know the arguments -- They were written in Greek, not Hebrew. They don't claim inspiration. They were never embraced by the Jews. They were not included in the very earliest scriptural collections. They contain unusual tales and principles which contradict other biblical beliefs.

---

quote:

---

That -- along with my belief that God would not have allowed the putting aside of inspired scripture -- is what gives me confidence in my faith in the Bible.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I would have to take exception to the statement that every Christian was reading and following these writings for 1,200 years and allowed Luther to throw them out. There's no way you can make me believe that. People wouldn't stand for that now; I don't believe they would have then - unless it was meant to be. It's been over 1,200 years since they were omitted. too. .

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
They were counted in when the canon was set -- sometime in the 4th century as I recall.

---

quote:

---

Luther read them out in the middle of the 16th century. What do you mean you don't believe they were there? What do you mean, they were omitted 1,200 years ago? Those statements are simply historically not true.

---

quote:

---

And I would remind you that the vast majority of Christians didn't and don't read them out -- only a few in northern europe did.

---

quote:

---

Because these assertions have proven to be more than slightly dubious. FOr example, there are Hebrew texts of some of them. FOr another, they were embraced by the Jews of Jesus' time and the church of the same time. The masoretic text to which I think you refer was set several decades after the church began, and was controversial in Judaism for some time. I'm not sure that we should take the judgement of an admittedly anti-Christian Jewish council as definitive of what Christians should believe is scripture, especially when Christians of the time disagreed. FOr a third, some of the canonical OT embraces tales at least as strange and unusual as are found in the OT.

---

quote:

---

The obvious comment is "which bible". The bible of most christians includes them. And the bible of some other christians excludes some of what you (and I) include.

And the other is that God does seem to allow all sorts of things that appear to my limited eyes to go against the easy way of achieving his will -- I see no reason to suppose that he would have stopped Luther erring in this way, when most christians did not follow Luther in this error.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

A lot of inerrantist theology sounds to me like it was written by cops taking statements, and assessing potential witnesses. I think we need to grasp that the Biblical concept of "witness" is much richer than, and maybe not much to do with, The Bill, or Cagney and Lacey.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Matthew must have had access to baptismal registers and all those names must have been real people.

---

He didn't need no stinkin' baptismal registers. He was God's own dictophone! And so was Luke! God has spoken. It's up to us to wrestle with the Gospel and push and shove it into a shape that we can sincerely say has no contradictions 'cuz ipso facto God would never contradict himself.

--------------------
"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

Posted                          

quote:

---

I suppose an example of this is the geneaologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke which don't marry up and which were probably, in large part, made up.

---

quote:

---

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli...

---

...but he still gives the genealogy! Or maybe we should see it as part of one hell of a CV for a childminder...

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
But I don't think that ancient genealogies were that scientific. Alfred the Great, for example, claimed to be descended both from Wotan and our Lord's cousin (which means our own dear Queen...), I don't think this was taken terribly literally but it is meant to tell a story about Alfred being noble and distinguished.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Words written meaningfully are, of course, propositions.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I was a little puzzled by the jump from oracles to propositions.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

And Callan, I was also puzzled by the oracles=revealed truth. I can't think of any cases where oracles are clear propositional statements. It not being my area of study, this could be my ignorance, but it seems very strange.

---