Biblical Inerrancy

145791015

Comments

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 25
    MPaul wrote: »
    Well look at it this way. He did not create our sin but was willing to intervene to save us from its consequences.
    As I mention to Steve Langton, what I was referring to was the need to recognise.

    But he did create our sins because he created the whole kit and caboodle. He gave us our nature and then smacks us for following it, such a nice guy.
    The whole concept is problematic, but your version is downright sadistic.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    @Golden Key : I do not understand it as I think it is mystery but as I would try to explain it, he had to be truly human and was so through Mary. Scripture teaches us he was both the last of the old line and the first of the new..the last ‘adam’ and the first born of a new creation. 1Cor15:45 and Romans 5:14.

    He had no biological father being conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was flesh and blood and had to overcome the bodily temptations we do. As he was actually the eternal ’Logos’ in a human body, he was not adamic in origin as he was part of the God head and therefore uncreated as Adam was. I trust that is sufficiently confusing.

    Sufficiently confusing and sufficiently heretical. If he wasn't adamic then he wasn't human as we are, and the human nature and the divine nature were not united in him.

    As I say, I do not understand it and am happy to leave the mystery element alone. Jesus could not be a created being yet he shares in our humanity. Heretical? Less so than denying the fall I would have thought.

    What's the fall?
    The season after the summer

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    But he did create our sins because he created the whole kit and caboodle
    This is a denial of human responsibility...you are taking a Calvinist stance here which would say that God engineers all outcomes leaving no room for free will. This is a position that is untenable as without choice we are simply robots, programmed into a predetermined destiny.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    The Trinity and the Incarnation are the central pillars of the Christian faith. The Fall? That comes WAAAAY down the list. Bad theology leads to bad deeds. A rotten theology of the Incarnation is not just a heresy. It's a danger.
    Well perhaps I did not put it very well but I thought my grasp of the incarnation was traditional. Jesus the eternal word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. He did not stop being God but he was truly a man..the Hypostatic Union I think it is called.

    However, IMV the real danger is the underestimation of the effect of sin as a terminal spiritual disease for which there is only one solution, the application of Cross.

    There is none righteous, not one
    All have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory
    By the transgression of the one,death reigned through the one
    Ro 5:14-17

    The place the gospel becomes relevant is in the recognition of our sinfulness. That this is both innate and outworked is manifest. We sin because we are sinners; we are not sinners because we sin.

    If the old man was not fatally flawed then why was it necessary for The resurrected Christ to be proclaimed the firstborn of a new creation?
  • Unfortunately right now my computer is effectively 'on its last legs' and it's become very difficult to carry on on the forum. New machine should be up and running by next weekend, and I'll probably have access to another computer on Monday to at least minimally keep up with things. For now I'm logging out.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    by lilbuddha
    but we need ultimately to recognise that we are sinners that Christ died for.
    And that is incompatible with a loving god.

    Please explain - why and how is Jesus dying for our sins incompatible with a loving God??

    It's not. Requiring people to believe it happened or punish them for all eternity is incompatible with a loving God.


    Christianity 101 is about the intervention of God to save his created being, us. The inconvenient truth here is that we in our arrogance want to somehow sanitise that message to conform it to the nature of self we know rather than embrace the radical change needed in admitting the necessity of salvation from our sin.

    Couching the position in terms of:
    “requiring people to believe it happened or punishing them”
    is a peculiarly self destructive way to view the possibility of eternal life.

    When Jesus said “ except Ye repent Ye shall all likewise perish” and “unless you believe I am he you shall die in your sins,” that is not exactly an affirming message.

    He demands our acknowledgement of our need of him. Without that we remain separated because of our pride.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    @Golden Key : I do not understand it as I think it is mystery but as I would try to explain it, he had to be truly human and was so through Mary. Scripture teaches us he was both the last of the old line and the first of the new..the last ‘adam’ and the first born of a new creation. 1Cor15:45 and Romans 5:14.

    He had no biological father being conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was flesh and blood and had to overcome the bodily temptations we do. As he was actually the eternal ’Logos’ in a human body, he was not adamic in origin as he was part of the God head and therefore uncreated as Adam was. I trust that is sufficiently confusing.

    Sufficiently confusing and sufficiently heretical. If he wasn't adamic then he wasn't human as we are, and the human nature and the divine nature were not united in him.

    As I say, I do not understand it and am happy to leave the mystery element alone. Jesus could not be a created being yet he shares in our humanity. Heretical? Less so than denying the fall I would have thought.

    What's the fall?

    The fall was the outcome of the sin of our first parents Adam and Eve who were seduced by Satan into disobeying God. This meant the breaking of fellowship with the creator for them and all their descendants.

    So now you know.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    But he did create our sins because he created the whole kit and caboodle
    This is a denial of human responsibility...you are taking a Calvinist stance here which would say that God engineers all outcomes leaving no room for free will. This is a position that is untenable as without choice we are simply robots, programmed into a predetermined destiny.
    I never said god engineered every outcome. Just that he created the game, the rules and the consequences.
    If I create a game that you make every choice, but there is only one path to victory, you are still making every choice. Your version of god creates the ultimate penalty for losing a game that one cannot opt out of. That is fucked up.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    The inconvenient truth here is that we in our arrogance want to somehow sanitise that message to conform it to the nature of self we know rather than embrace the radical change needed in admitting the necessity of salvation from our sin.
    You do realise that this position in itself is arrogant?
    He demands our acknowledgement of our need of him. Without that we remain separated because of our pride.
    This does not make sense. If you love your child and they do the right thing, do you then punish them if they did not realise they learned the right thing from you?

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    But he did create our sins because he created the whole kit and caboodle
    This is a denial of human responsibility...you are taking a Calvinist stance here which would say that God engineers all outcomes leaving no room for free will. This is a position that is untenable as without choice we are simply robots, programmed into a predetermined destiny.
    I never said god engineered every outcome. Just that he created the game, the rules and the consequences.
    If I create a game that you make every choice, but there is only one path to victory, you are still making every choice. Your version of god creates the ultimate penalty for losing a game that one cannot opt out of. That is fucked up.
    But by asserting God makes every choice there you leave no room for human choice. You seem angry at God for his decision to create a single path of salvation. You are in error when you say he created the game. He did create you and me and everyone but the conundrum of our sinfulness does not originate with him. The ‘game’ or the situation was created by the fall and God is not the author of evil.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    But by asserting God makes every choice there you leave no room for human choice. You seem angry at God for his decision to create a single path of salvation. You are in error when you say he created the game. He did create you and me and everyone but the conundrum of our sinfulness does not originate with him. The ‘game’ or the situation was created by the fall and God is not the author of evil.

    But God created humans with the capacity to fall. To make salvation reliant on having heard the right thing in the right way such that you believe a certain thing doesn't read like the action of a loving God. The first letter of John suggests that, far from being a matter of evangelical-style decisionism and ticking off doctrinal statements, "those who love are born of God and know God" - knowing God is not necessarily conscious, and following him a matter of love for others.
  • @MPaul, and sorry if you've already been asked this, do you believe that God communicates with people in any way today, such that He could command something like in the Book of Joshua again?

    Do you think that the bloodier of the commandments in the Pentateuch apply at all now to Christians (or anyone else), or that Christ's Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection, etc., made them no longer apply?

    If any Christians, thinking that such commandments were still binding, enacted laws in their countries that acted out any of the bloodier commandments in the Pentateuch - ones that modern secular people would consider barbarous today - would they be committing wrong by doing so? If so, would they be doing wrong by having legal punishments that modern notions of human rights consider to be heinous, or would they only be doing wrong because they are trying to live under the Mosaic Law when (if you think this based on your view on the first question above) Jesus made that not only unnecessary but wrong?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    But by asserting God makes every choice there you leave no room for human choice. You seem angry at God for his decision to create a single path of salvation. You are in error when you say he created the game. He did create you and me and everyone but the conundrum of our sinfulness does not originate with him. The ‘game’ or the situation was created by the fall and God is not the author of evil.

    But God created humans with the capacity to fall. To make salvation reliant on having heard the right thing in the right way such that you believe a certain thing doesn't read like the action of a loving God. The first letter of John suggests that, far from being a matter of evangelical-style decisionism and ticking off doctrinal statements, "those who love are born of God and know God" - knowing God is not necessarily conscious, and following him a matter of love for others.

    That God created us with the capacity to fall is true. He also made angels with that capacity. I think he also made us, originally, with the capacity not to fall. The ability to choose is a large part of who we are.

    The straw man in the assumption of the rest of your statement is that salvation in a Biblical sense depends on having heard the right thing in the right way. I do think what we believe ie doctrine, is important but your statement seems to remove the relational fluidity and make salvation entirely transactional or legal in essence.

    What I believe FWIW is that God seeks and saves the lost. The Holy Spirit puts the believer in the way of hearing the Gospel in a way that offers hope and relationship. In my experience there is a cost and an initial step needed that confronts the sinful self.

    Because this is contexted in whatever the seeker’s current circumstances are it is not something that everyone will experience in the same way.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Stonespring: do you believe that God communicates with people in any way today, such that He could command something like in the Book of Joshua again?

    No this comes back to my insistence of the Bible as a coherent and progressive revelation of God’s plan to redeem humanity. I think that Adam and Eve were higher order beings but through their decision and through ensuing History, mankind fell into idolatrous barbarism that required the need for either destruction or redemption.

    The OT stories reflect the stage of that redemptive journey that required the judgements of God on those whom he could not redeem. Through the law and the prophets and finally the marvellous Christ, we find mankind once again lifted from the barbarism that required a Joshua. All of our conceptual and social progress despite setbacks have come through the influence of Christianity.

    I believe we are now close to the stage in history where Jesus will return to establish his kingdom.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    LilBuddah :If you love your child and they do the right thing, do you then punish them if they did not realise they learned the right thing from you?

    Your continual focus here is on the consequence of being stuck down a deep hole with a safety harness within your reach and people at the top yelling at you to put it on and be lifted out and you saying no, there has to be another alternative.

    Through my first parents’ decision, I am in the hole. God did not put me there but he wants to get me out.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    But by asserting God makes every choice there you leave no room for human choice.
    i didn’t say he made every choice.
    You seem angry at God for his decision to create a single path of salvation.
    I am not angry at God
    You are in error when you say he created the game. He did create you and me and everyone but the conundrum of our sinfulness does not originate with him. The ‘game’ or the situation was created by the fall and God is not the author of evil.
    Question for you then. Did God create the universe?

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Yep
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Yep
    So, then, God created the consequences for failing his arbitrary test.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    If you are determined to completely do away with human responsibility and determined to blame God for everything wrong in the universe then knockyourself out. I have told you what I think scripture says.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Well perhaps I did not put it very well but I thought my grasp of the incarnation was traditional. Jesus the eternal word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. He did not stop being God but he was truly a man..the Hypostatic Union I think it is called.

    If you believe he didn't have Adamic DNA then you are far from a traditionalist. You miss out that he took flesh of the virgin Mary. Who was a daughter of Adam. You would have him take some new, never-before-seen kind of flesh that appeared for the very first time at his conception. That's heretical.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    If you are determined to completely do away with human responsibility and determined to blame God for everything wrong in the universe then knockyourself out. I have told you what I think scripture says.
    I’m just outlining the logic of your position.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    If you are determined to completely do away with human responsibility and determined to blame God for everything wrong in the universe then knockyourself out. I have told you what I think scripture says.
    I’m just outlining the logic of your position.
    No you aren’t. You have stated essentially that what God allows,he also causes. That is not logical. It is merely a position you cannot see beyond. The truth is that God always allows us freedom to choose.

  • No, she specifically said she doesn't think God "makes every choice." She is allowing for freedom of choice.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Well perhaps I did not put it very well but I thought my grasp of the incarnation was traditional. Jesus the eternal word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. He did not stop being God but he was truly a man..the Hypostatic Union I think it is called.

    If you believe he didn't have Adamic DNA then you are far from a traditionalist. You miss out that he took flesh of the virgin Mary. Who was a daughter of Adam. You would have him take some new, never-before-seen kind of flesh that appeared for the very first time at his conception. That's heretical.

    I have stated Christ did descend from Adam. I maintain the Othodox view of the fall is flawed. You lot apparently consider that we do not inherit the nature of Adam. This contradicts Paul’s teaching that in Adam all died; in Christ all shall be made alive.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    No, she specifically said she doesn't think God "makes every choice." She is allowing for freedom of choice.
    No, while she says that, I think that in post after post she has denied choice is possible in any practical way in view of the fact that God could have predicted and failed to prevent negative outcomes.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    I have stated Christ did descend from Adam. I maintain the Othodox view of the fall is flawed. You lot apparently consider that we do not inherit the nature of Adam. This contradicts Paul’s teaching that in Adam all died; in Christ all shall be made alive.

    Well, you said:
    MPaul wrote: »
    He had no biological father being conceived through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was flesh and blood and had to overcome the bodily temptations we do. As he was actually the eternal ’Logos’ in a human body, he was not adamic in origin as he was part of the God head and therefore uncreated as Adam was. I trust that is sufficiently confusing.
    (emphasis mine)

    Maybe it's time for you to tell us what "adamic in origin" means, if not "descended from Adam." You appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.


  • MPaul wrote: »
    I have stated Christ did descend from Adam. I maintain the Othodox view of the fall is flawed. You lot apparently consider that we do not inherit the nature of Adam. This contradicts Paul’s teaching that in Adam all died; in Christ all shall be made alive.

    The nature of Adam was human. We inherit the human nature from Adam. Adam had no other nature but human.
  • Clearly "in Adam all died" is a metaphor. You have apparently taken this metaphor to mean there is something we physically inherit from Adam, like the crude version of the Catholics'
    version of original sin. You call this "Adam's nature" and claim the Orthodox don't believe in it. You're right. We don't. It was a late innovation, not part of the apostolic faith, and we don't buy it.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Actually, the real argument against the notion of sin being like an inherited disease is found in the OT, in Ezekiel 18. He argues against the old saying "The Fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge". He says it is wrong, and should no more be heard. "The soul that sins is the one who will die."

    Ezekiel argues that when it comes to sinning, missing the mark on personal behaviour, we have to take personal responsibility for our errors, not blame it on our inheritance from our ancestors. Of course it is true that we may be badly influenced by cruelty and bad example but they do not determine who we are. They may be mitigating arguments, they should be taken into account in any just assessment, but they don't take away self-determination.

    Personally, I think the Orthodox view (which Kallistos Ware describes as a belief in ancestral sin) is better than the Augustinian view. The work of the Holy Spirit, in pricking our consciences or cutting us to the heart may indeed both convict and convince, but it does not determine our individual responses. We choose to do better or worse. I don't buy deterministic views of human choices.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Clearly "in Adam all died" is a metaphor. You have apparently taken this metaphor to mean there is something we physically inherit from Adam, like the crude version of the Catholics'
    version of original sin. You call this "Adam's nature" and claim the Orthodox don't believe in it. You're right. We don't. It was a late innovation, not part of the apostolic faith, and we don't buy it.

    So you decide and the Othodox decide what is literal and what is metaphorical? I do not think so. 1Cor:22 is Paul explaining the resurrection. This is the overcoming of death through Christ. We do literally all die as a consequence of the Adamic taint..which you share whether you acknowledge it or not. But Christ will overcome death. As to lateness, how late is 1 Cotinthians?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    I have stated Christ did descend from Adam. I maintain the Othodox view of the fall is flawed. You lot apparently consider that we do not inherit the nature of Adam. This contradicts Paul’s teaching that in Adam all died; in Christ all shall be made alive.

    The nature of Adam was human. We inherit the human nature from Adam. Adam had no other nature but human.
    Correct. We also inherit the sin nature from him. If you can’t see it most others can.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 26
    What is "sin nature" as opposed to human nature?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Actually, the real argument against the notion of sin being like an inherited disease is found in the OT, in Ezekiel 18. He
    The real argument FOR same is in Romans 5 I think.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Actually, the real argument against the notion of sin being like an inherited disease is found in the OT, in Ezekiel 18. He
    The real argument FOR same is in Romans 5 I think.

    Does that mean you're admitting different parts of the Bible offer different views on some things?
  • agingjbagingjb Shipmate
    "Created sick, commanded to be sound."
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    MPaul wrote: »
    Actually, the real argument against the notion of sin being like an inherited disease is found in the OT, in Ezekiel 18. He
    The real argument FOR same is in Romans 5 I think.

    Does that mean you're admitting different parts of the Bible offer different views on some things?
    The combination of the two provokes questions which have divided the church.

    1. Are we really made in the image of God?
    2. How helpless are we?
    3. How depraved are we?

    We're made, somehow, in the image of God, but for some reason we don't seem to able to live up to that. I think if you hold these things in tension and don't deny either, then we need to recognise both our personal responsibility and our fallibility as real challenges we face in our lives every day. We're a pilgrim people. We journey through life with these challenges. It's not good for us to try to do that journey alone.

    Of course what Ezekiel says is not what Paul says. Which doesn't mean their sayings are devoid of insight into the human condition. Nor does it mean they tell the whole story.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @Barnabas62 - you said ‘for some reason’ we don’t live up to the image of God.

    To me, the reason is very simple.

    We are animals. Our animal instincts are useful a lot of the time, we wouldn’t survive without them. But they get in the way of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and faithfulness some of the time.

    So we live with a balancing act - looking after ourselves and caring for others. We can’t care for others without caring for ourselves but taking self care too far tips into selfishness, so another type of balance is needed.

    Of course different parts of the Bible offer different views - everyone sees life through their own lens, how could we do otherwise?
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited January 26
    MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Clearly "in Adam all died" is a metaphor. You have apparently taken this metaphor to mean there is something we physically inherit from Adam, like the crude version of the Catholics'
    version of original sin. You call this "Adam's nature" and claim the Orthodox don't believe in it. You're right. We don't. It was a late innovation, not part of the apostolic faith, and we don't buy it.

    So you decide and the Othodox decide what is literal and what is metaphorical

    No, you do. Sorry. But seriously, yes, it is the job of the Church to determine what Scripture means. It is not your job. It is not my job. That's what the councils are all about. That's what the council in Acts 15 was all about. The leaders of the church came together to decide between competing interpretations of scripture.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    I have stated Christ did descend from Adam. I maintain the Othodox view of the fall is flawed. You lot apparently consider that we do not inherit the nature of Adam. This contradicts Paul’s teaching that in Adam all died; in Christ all shall be made alive.

    The nature of Adam was human. We inherit the human nature from Adam. Adam had no other nature but human.
    Correct. We also inherit the sin nature from him. If you can’t see it most others can.

    Theology is not a plebescite. There is no such thing as a "sin nature." Show me the words "sin nature" in scripture.
  • agingjb wrote: »
    "Created sick, commanded to be sound."

    Surely if we are created sick then our sickness comes from God.
  • I'm tempted to think that being made in God's image and having free will are, if not the same thing, two sides of the same coin. Similarly, the Fall, for me, is the necessary result of any exercise of free will absent an acceptance of God's grace to help guide that exercise. For as long as there have been humans, being born human has meant to be born needing, once has reached the age of moral responsibility, to accept God's grace in order to be capable of realizing the holy potential of being created in God's image.

    The story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor to explain this. Eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil means being born with a conscience that gives us a gut feeling about right and wrong, but absent a Revelation of God's teachings we cannot fully form our consciences to enable us to discern right and wrong to the best of our abilities (although this ability can be severely inhibited by mental illness or addiction). With Revelation in hand, we are able to make a decision to accept God's grace or not to enable us to choose good, although we may fail sometimes in doing so and need to repent, which is to turn back towards God and continue on the path shown to us through Grace, which is the path that leads to Him. Sinning, therefore, is enthroning our will alone, rather than our will acting in cooperation with God, as the ultimate determiner of good and evil.

    Christ came into this world to give us this Revelation and, through His Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, to make it possible for us to accept God's grace. However, the effects of this work backward to the beginning of Human history (and to people who are not exposed to His message today - which is a message that speaks both within and outside his Church), such that all people at all times have been able to accept God's grace as best they can in the context of the culture and conditions they have been born into. Progressive Revelation simply means that the Holy Spirit's eternal gift of the Word (that is, Christ, who Himself is the fullness of Revelation) to us has enabled a better understanding of righteous behavior towards other humans (that is, human rights and human responsibility) and righteous stewardship of Creation to develop over time. This understanding can take major steps backward, as recent history has shown us, but the overarching direction that it moves is forward. The increase in human knowledge of science and technology, which in itself is a good thing, has also enabled us to more catastrophically act in violation of our ever-developing understanding of how we can do good if we accept God's will.

    That was a bit convoluted, and I'm not sure how much I actually believe it, but that's as best as I can explain it.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    No, she specifically said she doesn't think God "makes every choice." She is allowing for freedom of choice.
    No, while she says that, I think that in post after post she has denied choice is possible in any practical way in view of the fact that God could have predicted and failed to prevent negative outcomes.
    Say it however you want, what you are describing is your world view. Your view of God creates those conditions.

  • MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Clearly "in Adam all died" is a metaphor. You have apparently taken this metaphor to mean there is something we physically inherit from Adam, like the crude version of the Catholics'
    version of original sin. You call this "Adam's nature" and claim the Orthodox don't believe in it. You're right. We don't. It was a late innovation, not part of the apostolic faith, and we don't buy it.

    So you decide and the Othodox decide what is literal and what is metaphorical? I do not think so.
    This is exactly what you are doing.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »

    That's a string of characters leading to more. What is sin nature as opposed to human nature?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    So you decide and the Othodox decide what is literal and what is metaphorical? I do not think so.
    This is exactly what you are doing.

    No, no, you don't understand. MORE people believe his way than mine.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Barnabas 28:There is also very strong evidence of significant variation in the histories in the OT (Samuel and Chronicles), significant story and history variation both within the Synoptic Gospels and when comparing them to the gospel of John.
    OK, show us what you’ve got then.

    Not very well at present, wrestling with a virus.
    But from many examples

    OT - Firstly trajectory of understanding who God is.
    Exodus 20. You shall have no other Gods before me. Psalm 95. The Lord is the great God, the great King above all Gods. That's henotheistic. Those verses do not deny the existence of other Gods but declare God's supremacy. Isaiah 43 v 10. Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me. Also Isaiah 45 v 1. I am the Lord and there is no other. That's monotheistic. There has only ever been one God.

    On the detail of the histories. Here is a well known example. Who killed Goliath? Was it David (1 Sam 17) or Elhanan (2 Sam 21)? Or maybe Elhanan slew Goliath's brother (1 Chron 20)?

    NT -. In what stage of his ministry did Jesus cleanse the Temple? The synoptics place his actions in the week before the crucifixion, but John places it right at the start. Who is right? Or is John not to be trusted for chronology?

    When was the Holy Spirit given to the disciples? At Pentecost, after Jesus ascension, as Acts has it, or in the upper room during the first resurrection appearance in the upper room, as John has it? And if the disciples received the Holy Spirit as a direct gift from the resurrected but not yet ascended Jesus, why do the Synoptics not mention this? Seems like a pretty big deal.

    On an important issue of teaching, why does Matthew report Jesus as allowing divorce for marital unfaithfulness, whereas Mark does not? Oh and on a detail of history, how many times did the cock crow in Peter's denial? Mark is very clear that Jesus prophesied twice. That's not the way Matthew tells it. Or John, whose version is different in other ways.

    A theology of scripture has to take these variations into account or it is ignoring evidence.
    defendinginerrancy.com/common-objections-to-inerrancy/
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    How about looking at the specifics rather than providing more general arguments defending inerrancy. I showed you some of the things I've got as you've asked. There are many more examples revealed by detailed examinations of the text.

    There is a cumulative weight of evidence in the texts themselves. It does not require us to dump a belief in the authority and inspiration of scripture but it points conclusively to the fallibility of the processes by which scripture has been produced, the extent to which the human authors factored their own understandings and beliefs into the accounts they produced.

    I do not require these texts to be free from error in order to recognise the sincerity of the various witnesses and the importance to them of their beliefs. There is no requirement to harmonise their outlooks and understandings. We share a common humanity and fallibility.

    If I give just one example, one of the very earliest new testament documents (the letter to the Galatians) is remarkably honest about the differences between Peter and Paul, and is bluntly critical of those who disagree with Paul over the then controversial clash of views over circumcision. I think it is an excellent witness to the truth that from the beginning, the church was not all sweetness and light. People wrestled with the meaning and significance of the life of, and witness to the life of, Jesus. We still do.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Today's reading from Nehemiah has Ezra and others reading the laws and giving interpretations. Not just reading but opening up and explaining. That seemed to me then and still does a strong argument against modern inerrancy teaching
  • MPaul wrote: »
    I only read as far as the first section as the author(s) demonstrate the lack of understanding between the difference of a assertion and a fact, And just plain making stuff up.

Sign In or Register to comment.