Inerancy - Define, or dismiss?

[Cyd]

You misspelled Mariachi. - LOL

View attachment 40190

/

LOL I edited it you are just to fast for me at getting my response... mine is not that fast on here.

 

[St. SteVen]

No you post some interesting things, but I thought you were universalism in that all go to heaven yes?

Yes and no.
Christian Universalist? Yes.
Believe that all go straight to heaven? No.
Everyone will face judgment, correction, restoration and redemption.
All are saved already. But not ready for heaven.

Regarding hell you obviously don't believe this scripture Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

A matter of interpretation, I suppose.
They will have their part. But what is their part?
What will die in the second death? What died in the first death?
I think this is about restoration. Even "believers" are tested with fire.
"... even though only as one escaping through the flames." - 1 Corinthians 3:15 NIV

This does list unbelievers in the list.

What is an unbeliever?
Seems like a short list to me. Jesus said...

Mark 9:49 NIV
Everyone will be salted with fire.

Malachi 3:2 NIV
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears?
For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

/ @Hillsage

 

[Augustin56]

Interesting post. Here are some questions, though:

1. Does inerrancy apply to translations into different languages, understanding that there are some languages that the full, correct meaning may not be able to be correctly translated?
2. Does that mean interpretation of the Bible is inerant? If so, explain why there are 10's of thousands of man-made Protestant denominations, all based on someone's personal interpretation of Scripture, but coming up with contradictory interpretations.
3. What does the Bible say is the "pillar and foundation of truth?" (Hint: It's neither the Bible nor is it someone personally interpreting the Bible.)
4. What sure guide did Jesus leave us when He ascended to heaven, to know His truths?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Questions;
- Is inerrancy really more about the interpretation of a text than the text itself?
- Is the claim of inerrancy centered on a particular doctrinal view of the Bible?
- Is inerrancy of more importance in evangelicalism than across the spectrum of Christianity?
- Is a belief in biblical inerrancy the litmus test for the believer in Jesus Christ?
- Does making inerrancy the center of Christian faith lead to an imbalance?
- What makes the Bible a true book?
- Should our trust in the book overshadow our trust in the author?

A church I used to attend in S. CA was almost destroyed by such questions. It had a school of theology, and the pastor grew concerned about the rise of liberal elements in the college.

So he required all of the professors to sign a document indicating their support for biblical inerrancy. Since this does mean different things for different people I learned that many perhaps good professors left the college. They could not sign onto something they did not believe even though they fully supported biblical authority.

There is a big difference between biblical authority and biblical perfection. Since the Bible was written by men I would suppose the writing of the Bible would reflect human imperfection? Over time, those who viewed the Scriptures as divinely inspired would correct grammatical errors, etc. The gist of the records would remain unassailable as products of divine revelation speaking through flawed human beings.

One cannot read in the Gospels about Peter and John without seeing their human flaws. And yet they wrote Scriptures! I think that Jesus spent several years with them precisely because they are flawed and needed to get Jesus' teachings right so that they could properly be recorded.

So I view the Scriptures as authoritative teachings of Jesus and of God in all places. People are able to hear from God if so gifted. And they can responsibly convey the truths God has wanted to convey.

I consider the Scriptures authoritative without having to view the original autographs as "flawless" grammatically and lingually. At any rate, we don't have those original autographs!

 

[St. SteVen]

A church I used to attend in S. CA was almost destroyed by such questions. It had a school of theology, and the pastor grew concerned about the rise of liberal elements in the college.

It seems that if you question the church and the Bible they fall apart pretty quickly.
However God welcomes questions and responds well.
The church and the Bible are not intended to replace God. IMO

/

 

[Augustin56]

A church I used to attend in S. CA was almost destroyed by such questions. It had a school of theology, and the pastor grew concerned about the rise of liberal elements in the college.

So he required all of the professors to sign a document indicating their support for biblical inerrancy. Since this does mean different things for different people I learned that many perhaps good professors left the college. They could not sign onto something they did not believe even though they fully supported biblical authority.

There is a big difference between biblical authority and biblical perfection. Since the Bible was written by men I would suppose the writing of the Bible would reflect human imperfection? Over time, those who viewed the Scriptures as divinely inspired would correct grammatical errors, etc. The gist of the records would remain unassailable as products of divine revelation speaking through flawed human beings.

One cannot read in the Gospels about Peter and John without seeing their human flaws. And yet they wrote Scriptures! I think that Jesus spent several years with them precisely because they are flawed and needed to get Jesus' teachings right so that they could properly be recorded.

So I view the Scriptures as authoritative teachings of Jesus and of God in all places. People are able to hear from God if so gifted. And they can responsibly convey the truths God has wanted to convey.

I consider the Scriptures authoritative without having to view the original autographs as "flawless" grammatically and lingually. At any rate, we don't have those original autographs!

Let's use an analogy for a minute. Say that, instead of talking about God, etc., we were talking about brain surgery. And, the most definitive, universally accepted book on brain surgery was given to every medical student on the planet. What approach would you think would be most effective out of the following two? 1) Let every student read the book by his/her own light and interpret it for themselves. or 2) Let every student read the book in the context of the classes given by a trained professional brain surgeon, who wrote the book and guided the class through it?

I would argue that the second approach would be far superior than the first, yes? I certainly wouldn't want anyone performing brain surgery on me who had only read the book for themselves, by their own light.

Now take the analogy and apply it to the Bible. Would it be best to just allow every man, woman, and child to read the Bible and interpret it through his/her own light, for themselves? Or would it be better for them to read the Bible in light of the teachings and guidance of the Church that wrote it?

 

[St. SteVen]

There is a big difference between biblical authority and biblical perfection.

That's a great point.

So I view the Scriptures as authoritative teachings of Jesus and of God in all places.

There are differences of opinion as to whether texts are to be taken literally, or figuratively.
And questions that arise when compared to human history/archeology and science.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Now take the analogy and apply it to the Bible. Would it be best to just allow every man, woman, and child to read the Bible and interpret it through his/her own light, for themselves? Or would it be better for them to read the Bible in light of the teachings and guidance of the Church that wrote it?

The Church that wrote it?

That only makes sense on the basis of the Bible being the word of the church instead of the word of God.

Every man, woman, and child who reads the Bible has access to the REAL author (God) if they have questions.
Something you seem to want to prevent.

John 16:13 NIV
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. ...

1 Corinthians 2:15-16 NIV
The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things,
but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[a]
But we have the mind of Christ.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Now take the analogy and apply it to the Bible. Would it be best to just allow every man, woman, and child to read the Bible and interpret it through his/her own light, for themselves? Or would it be better for them to read the Bible in light of the teachings and guidance of the Church that wrote it?

If the Church (capital C) wants to take credit for writing the Bible, will it also take credit for the problems?

Like the creation account and the flood account are only legends. There was no exodus from Egypt, the Israelites were actually Canaanites, there was no "entering" the Promised Land, only genocide to remove the OTHER Canaanites, that Daniel was a pretend prophet, etc. ???

/

 

[Augustin56]

The Church that wrote it?

That only makes sense on the basis of the Bible being the word of the church instead of the word of God.

Every man, woman, and child who reads the Bible has access to the REAL author (God) if they have questions.
Something you seem to want to prevent.

John 16:13 NIV
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. ...

1 Corinthians 2:15-16 NIV
The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things,
but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[a]
But we have the mind of Christ.

/

All of the New Testament writers were members of the original Church. God didn't reach a Big Hand down and hand someone a King James version of the Bible. In fact, it wasn't until the late 4th century that the Chuch gathered, prayed to the Holy Spirit, and went through over 300 letters, documents, etc., and came up with the 27 books we all now accept as the New Testament. They existed before then, but weren't formatlly considered Scripture. Many works, like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, were thought to be shoo-ins to make the cut, but didn't. It is by the authority Christ gave His Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we have a New Testament today. It is the Church that St. Paul says is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Not everyone self-interpreting their Bible. Why do you think we have so many different-believing Protestant denominations today? The truth cannot contradict itself.

 

[Augustin56]

If the Church (capital C) wants to take credit for writing the Bible, will it also take credit for the problems?

Like the creation account and the flood account are only legends. There was no exodus from Egypt, the Israelites were actually Canaanites, there was no "entering" the Promised Land, only genocide to remove the OTHER Canaanites, that Daniel was a pretend prophet, etc. ???

/

The Church has always had problems, beginning with Judas Iscariot. Why? Because we have always been in battle with Satan and his demons. Yet, it is still Christ's Church. Peter denied Christ three times, yet Christ didn't kick him out or remove the authority He gave him. The rest, except for St. John, deserted Him like cowards during His passion. Christ didn't kick them out either.

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum of Saints.

 

[St. SteVen]

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum of Saints.

On that point we agree.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Why do you think we have so many different-believing Protestant denominations today? The truth cannot contradict itself.

Are you claiming there are no disagreements or contradictions within the Catholic Church?

I think the "no contradictions" claim is a fallacy. IMHO

One nice thing about being Protestant. I'm allowed an opinion. - LOL

/

 

[Augustin56]

Are you claiming there are no disagreements or contradictions within the Catholic Church?

I think the "no contradictions" claim is a fallacy. IMHO

One nice thing about being Protestant. I'm allowed an opinion. - LOL

/

No, no. That's not what I'm saying. There were disagreements from the very beginning. Many heresies, some of them serious, (Arians, Gnostics, et al.) arose and had to be defeated. But the Deposit of Faith, the formal doctrines of the Church which she received from Christ, are completely intact and have never been changed. And there are absolutely no contradictions within the doctrines of the Church. There are individuals, however, who either don't understand the doctrines of the Church (most lay Catholics are woefully uneducated in the faith in this country!) or who think they know better. But they don't define doctrine. Catholics are required to give 100% assent to the Deposit of Faith, whether they understand it or not, just as they would Christ if He were telling them directly. If there is a problem, where they think something is not right in the Church's doctrines, then the first step is for them to examine where they, not the Church, have strayed.

 

[St. SteVen]

If there is a problem, where they think something is not right in the Church's doctrines, then the first step is for them to examine where they, not the Church, have strayed.

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed post. (as always)
Here's a question.

If a Catholic through the study of history, archeology and science discovers that the biblical creation account and the flood account are only legends. There was no exodus from Egypt, the Israelites were actually Canaanites, there was no "entering" the Promised Land, only genocide to remove the OTHER Canaanites, and that Daniel was a pretend prophet, they are to believe the Church instead? (yes, is implied) ???

I imagine there is a lot that is just to controversial to discuss? Once you know these things, they are difficult to dismiss.

/

 

[Augustin56]

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed post. (as always)
Here's a question.

If a Catholic through the study of history, archeology and science discovers that the biblical creation account and the flood account are only legends. There was no exodus from Egypt, the Israelites were actually Canaanites, there was no "entering" the Promised Land, only genocide to remove the OTHER Canaanites, and that Daniel was a pretend prophet, they are to believe the Church instead? (yes, is implied) ???

I imagine there is a lot that is just to controversial to discuss? Once you know these things, they are difficult to dismiss.

/

That's an excellent question! Hopefully, a Catholic studies Scripture as the Church recommends. The Church recognizes that the Bible is more of a library than a book. Libraries usually have more then one genre of books available to their readers. The story of the flood is in the book of Genesis. Genesis does not belong to the non-fiction (scientific) genre of books in the Bible, but the allegorical. God's truth is absolutely in there, but not necessasrily in the details. Similar to the parables that Jesus told. They are stories told to illustrate a truth.

Add to all that the fact that, especially in our day, archeology, history, and science aren't always correct. (I'm thinking, for example, of the so-called knee-jerk reaction to man-made "global warming" or "climate change" depending on whatever the latest fad is. Scientific research is funded by the government. The government won't pay scientists for global warming research unless they come up with the answers the government wants.

In the end, it all boils down to faith. Faith is believing something we cannot absolutely prove. But it's not believing something we cannot prove without having reasons. That's called credulity, which helps no one.

 

[St. SteVen]

That's an excellent question! Hopefully, a Catholic studies Scripture as the Church recommends. The Church recognizes that the Bible is more of a library than a book. Libraries usually have more then one genre of books available to their readers.

That's a good way to look at it.

The story of the flood is in the book of Genesis. Genesis does not belong to the non-fiction (scientific) genre of books in the Bible, but the allegorical. God's truth is absolutely in there, but not necessasrily in the details. Similar to the parables that Jesus told. They are stories told to illustrate a truth.

Seems to me that the inerrancy claim comes with the baggage that says the Genesis account is literal. (Exodus too)

Add to all that the fact that, especially in our day, archeology, history, and science aren't always correct. (I'm thinking, for example, of the so-called knee-jerk reaction to man-made "global warming" or "climate change" depending on whatever the latest fad is. Scientific research is funded by the government. The government won't pay scientists for global warming research unless they come up with the answers the government wants.

Right. We need to discern what is true and false.

In the end, it all boils down to faith. Faith is believing something we cannot absolutely prove. But it's not believing something we cannot prove without having reasons. That's called credulity, which helps no one.

Agree.

/

 

[Augustin56]

That's a good way to look at it.


Seems to me that the inerrancy claim comes with the baggage that says the Genesis account is literal. (Exodus too)


Right. We need to discern what is true and false.


Agree.

/

Yeah, I think many people mistakenly think the Bible is one book with one genre. While the truth is certainly there in all the books, it's conveyed in different ways. I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be a do-it-yourself kit for Christianity. It is a (great) tool...in the proper hands and in the proper context.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thanks, that's a good working definition.

But there are serious problems with that definition, as it has to do with the translation of the scriptures.
1) We don't have the original autographs. Only copies, of copies, of copies, of copies...
2) It is difficult to determine what are faithful copies. Three methods are used. See link below.
3) There are significant differences between Bible translations. Which one is inerrant?
4) There is no consensus on doctrine or meaning. Which one is inerrant?

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101​

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

/

Well other than paraphrases and cult translations, I am convinced that God has kept His word free from doctrinal error over the centuries.

Yes translations can lose some meaning but not truth. That is why a modern bible student does well to learn how to use the original languages as tools to see the translations better

Also because we are so far removed from the culture of the day and how they understood things, we lack significant understanding sometimes. We tend to think in 21st Century American instead of 1st century Greek, Roman and Israeli.

 

[St. SteVen]

Well other than paraphrases and cult translations, I am convinced that God has kept His word free from doctrinal error over the centuries.

I liked your post, but...
Doctrine is man-made. How can the Bible be free from doctrinal error?
I think I know what you are trying to say, but that's not the way to say it. IMHO

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that God's intended message was not lost in translation?

Yes translations can lose some meaning but not truth. That is why a modern bible student does well to learn how to use the original languages as tools to see the translations better

Agree.

Also because we are so far removed from the culture of the day and how they understood things, we lack significant understanding sometimes. We tend to think in 21st Century American instead of 1st century Greek, Roman and Israeli.

Agree.

/