It is not all about salvation
Quoting Scripture as proof is a fallacy. You are setting Scripture against reality. However Jesus did claim that it was the thought that counts. He said that if you think a sin then it is as if you do it, which works fine with your viewpoint, but the counter to that is that if the intent is good?
Are you kidding me? That is just ludicrous.
two things here.
One that is too Calvinistic for my liking. We have free will and are not pushed by God in either direction
Two
The exclusivity of Christianity is the main fault. The Bible is never going to imply that any other route or faith will suffice? But.
Judaism for one is still Godâs chosen race and faith and it does not include Christ in the form that we know Him.
IOW
Accept Scripture by all means, but do not impose it on others. God does not do it so we should not wither.
Sufficient for what / who? God or you?
Does God frgive sins for His own benefit?
Again, you seem obsessed with salvation and / or Heaven.
Perhaps Christianity is about living this life not the next?
I am sorry, but both Predestination and Original Sin are abhorrent.
What would qualify as an action by an ordinary (i.e., not Jesus) human that could not in some way be better?
Based on statements here, it would seem that you hold to the view that people can achieve perfect actions by their own free will, which is the definition of Pelagianism (to what exact level Pelagius himself believed it is an open question, but that is beside the point).
The statement is the view to the effect of âGodâs forgiveness is powerful enough to apply to all people, but does not because some reject it in their sin.â
Obsessed with? No. Think of it as one important issue among many, and probably secondary to promoting the Kingdom of God in time (by evangelizing, being salt and light, etc.), yes.
So far, we seem to have managed the spectacular feat of disagreeing on every secondary theological issue that has come up on these discussions.
False generalization.
Beside the fact that Job doesnât say that suffering is from sin â the story isnât about sin at all, itâs about a bet between the Adversary and God, a bet made openly in the courts of heavn.
Opening my eyes is why I know humanity is flawed. We canât even live up to our own standards we are so messed up!
You are confusing colloquial language with scriptural terminology â and Jesus disagrees with your equivocation since He flat out said âOnly God is goodâ.
You donât understand sin at all. Sin is any failure to be what God would be in any given situation. âBe perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfectâ is not a statement that we can be perfect, it is a huge condemnation because it is not possible. Every moment that our thoughts and actions are not perfect is a moment of sin.
Sin isnât deciding to aim off to the side, itâs aiming at the mark . . . and missing. âMissing the markâ is literally one of scriptureâs definitions for sin, and it tells us that we are supposed to hit the center of the bullseye every single time, in everything we do, in everything we say, everything we think.
Thatâs really a bad label for that parable; nowhere does it call the Samaritan âgoodâ. The use of that word is the colloquial usage. Itâs really a parable about what makes you a neighbor. If anything, it should be called âThe Merciful Samaritanâ.
Because humanity is universally and personally flawed. Paul says this when he notes that death is the evidence of sin.
Acquinas makes the argument that since whatever is not of faith is sin, and that no one has perfect faith, then that small portion of flaw in our faith makes every deed, word, and thought sin.
I donât think that âcorruptionâ is the best word here; Paul regards sin as evidence of our death. We are walking dead people, still hooked to the death of trespasses and sins yet at the same time delivered from those. âCorruptionâ ascribes to sin something greater than it is; Augustine said it well when he argued that sin is not a something, it is a lack of something. One of the medieval mystics observed that all sin is an attempt to be what God intended, just trying to take the same shortcut those first two did in the Garden; every sin flows from what were originally good impulses: the thief steals in order to live or to be rich, both of which are things God intended; the liar lies in order to make himself appear good, and being good is something God intended; and so on. The issue is pride: we want to be what God wants us to be, but we want to achieve that ourselves; the declaration of the Adversary, âI will be like God!â, sounds in all of us.
And thus is not âgoodâ in any sound theological sense. Our problem is not whether we will sin, it is which sin we will choose. Sin can be compared nicely to a virus: a typical virus isnât choosy, it invades every cell in the body, and sin invades every action, word, and thought.
Ever since I first saw it Iâve thought that the âIt just doesnât matter!â scene in the movie Meatballs shows the Gospel beautifully: no matter how bad we are, no matter what failures we may be, itâs covered âby the Bloodâ. The Accuser can point to our worst day when we were farthest from God, and we can say, âIt just doesnât matterâ; he can remind us how we cheated on something so our accomplishment was tarnished, and we can say, âIt just doesnât matterâ; he can explain at length that our every moment was tainted with thoughts of ourselves first, and we simply say, âIt just doesnât matter!â And when that Accuser throws up his hands and exclaims, âOf course it matters!â, we can respond, âNo, it just doesnât matter: all that matters is Jesus, and if you have a problem with me, go see Him about it â for me, it just doesnât matterâ.
This is a point about which Richard is right about sin: it just doesnât matter! Jesus took care of it all, so it isnât a worry. Worrying about whether this is a sin or that is a sin is a waste of time (unless itâs from the prompting of the Holy Spirit) because whether it is or not just doesnât matter because Jesus has it covered; we donât aim to miss the âsin targetâ, we donât even aim to hit the ârighteousness bullseyeâ, we aim to be like Jesus, and all the rest falls into place.
Keith Green had a song that hit this nicely: âHeâll Take Care of the Restâ â and since I havenât tossed a song in for a while . . . .
âIt just doesnât matterâ because âHeâll take care of the restâ.
The ultimate proof of inerrancy or not must be whether what it teaches is true. The fact that so many people can get such a variety of âtruthsâ from it makes it either a brilliant piece of writing or
It is not inerrant because people can err from it.
There have been many interesting comments on this thread. A key point that has been lifted up is that the definitions of âinerrantâ are diverse. Whether the Bible is inerrant depends on what we mean by inerrant.
I tried to summarize my impressions of the comments:
Biblical scriptures are not modern scientific or historical reports, and the modern criteria of such publications do not work in the case of the Bible. The biblical narratives are predominantly theological writings. The scriptures are ancient types of literature where details have been selected and told from the viewpoint of the theological message, rather than picturing the events like a neutral (natural) history textbook. The cosmological and historical details may therefore seem to differ from what the current science and history tells.
Interpretations about various passages of the biblical scriptures vary. If inerrant text is seen as something that all will understand in the same way, then biblical scriptures are not inerrant. On the other hand, we could say that the text and the interpretation are different matters. The text might be inerrant and we would still get differing interpretations because we read the text through âcolored spectaclesâ, through our worldview, education and experiences. We might honestly reach differing interpretations that reflect the teaching we have been given.
There is a difference between the words and the message. Even if the superficial meaning of the words would not be inerrant, the theological message may be inerrant. The attitude of Christian writers during the first centuries seems to focus on the theological message of the teachings and the authority of the person who gave the message. From that viewpoint, the biblical scriptures may be labelled âtrustworthyâ, possibly âinerrantâ, even if all details of the text would not be inerrant.
What do you think of this summary? Did I understand the ideas behind the comments correctly? Did I forget something crucial?
The main problem with inerrancy is that people use it to justify otherwise untenable positioning. Or, even worse, doctrines that are cruel, selfish or just plain inaccurate.
" The Bible (from Koine Greek Ďá˝° βΚβΝίι, tĂ biblĂa, âthe booksâ) is a collection of religious texts) or scriptures, some, all, or a variant of which are held to be sacred in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, the Bahaâi Faith, and other Abrahamic religions. The Bible is an anthology (a compilation of texts of a variety of forms) originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. The texts include instructions, stories, poetry, prophecies, and other genres. The collection of materials that are accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon. Believers in the Bible generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text varies."
Thatâs what I thought; there is no consensus and where there is no consensus on what âthe Bibleâ is, it should come as no surprise to anyone that an inerrant Bible/bible is a silly notion.
Therefore, I suggest that this silly thread be closed immediately.
All in favor, say âAyeâ or âlikeâ this post.
From my reading itâs common among Calvinists, but perhaps moreso among preachers of âhellfire and brimstoneâ (where itâs used more as an emotive bombshell rathr than a useful theological term.
I do like the term that C.S. Lewis applies in at least one book: âbentâ, implying that we are like a rotor axle that is no longer straight and thus throws off all the actions of the machinery; we are like people sufficiently crippled that we cannot walk straight â as Luther put it, we are like a drunken peasant in the dark trying to walk home; first he falls into on ditch, and on extricating himself proceeds to stumble along and drift to the other side and fall into the other ditch.
Sharing it as something âread in churchâ does.
No, Iâm arguing from the evidence. Canonization went from bottom up and arrived at an amazing agreement. That is pretty much impossible to explain from a merely human standpoint.
But they were rarely noted as âread in churchâ.
My statement comes from having read records of local, area, and regional councils all the way up to Athanasius. The whole thing was about what was being read in the churches.
Why canât you see that what your saying is just not accurate? People are neither crippled, damaged or corrupt by default. People can, and do achieve perfection, not necessarily in terms of religion but in terms of actions. Doctors, surgeons, firefighters.to name a few. Engineers have to produce as near perfect as is physically possible. I sell tools. If a tool is not perfect then it canât function. Perfection exists outside Scripture. Paul had a very jaundiced view of life and of people. It is just not accurate in the real world. Whay canât you see this? How can you claim such a thing from scripture? Either Scripture is plain wrong or you have misunderstood it.
You are confusing spirituality with actions. All the emergency services achieve as near perfection as is possible. And it is good!
Not according to Paul: they were broken off, the church was grafted in.
Predestination was taken out of context by John Calvin and spun into something contrary to the Gospel. The distortion came from applying it to individuals and all aspects of life including being a Christian instead of seeing it as God guaranteeing a people for Himself. Predestination means God has aimed us at the goal of conforming to the image of Christ and not a one will fall out of His hand; it doesnât mean He made choices for us and weâre stuck with them.
Not if you read Romans 12 properly. God has not completely forsaken His chosen people and never will.
Calvin was the extreme but there is a large element of predestination theology that still over rules freedom. âGod drawing people to Himselfâ is often taken as despite not because of their actions or behaviours or even thought.
My sister was a quality control engineer and she would laugh at the idea that anything in engineering reaches perfection. Perfection in engineering would mean that there is no scrap, no defects, no flaws at all. When circuit boards came off the line there were always some that got thrown away due to deficiencies, and the measure wasnât perfection, it was âgood enoughâ, i.e. it would do the intended job to the standard expected. Some circuit boards were complex enough that a 50% scrap rate was considered good!
Utterly false! I have a number of tools I got a good price on because they have flaws â theyâre not perfect, theyâre just good enough. A Scout troop I worked with got nearly a hundred self-inflating air mattresses for three-quarters off because the stitching wasnât good enough, but the company representative said it was a matter of degree, that there is never a perfect air mattress.
Given that he was inspired in his writing and that the Spirit affirmed his writing through guiding the canonization, Iâll say that Paul had a very accurate view of people.
I see it in the real world every day! I donât know what rose-colored glasses youâre wearing, but theyâre very good at overlooking the fact that almost everyone settles for âgood enoughâ.
Judging the Holy Spirit again, I see.
The scripture is plain: there is none that does good, not even one; only God is good.
What confusing? The two are not separate; that is an artificial division.
âNear perfectionâ is not perfection. That you add âas is possibleâ shows that you do recognize that no one can achieve perfection, we can only aim for it.
Not to a quality engineer â something either meets the standard or it doesnât.
In my experience, it seems mostly to appear in somewhat less-formal works, but that is a vague impression.
Most of the traditional Reformed denominations still believe in free will, just that no one would willingly chose Christ without prompting.
How to best conceptualize the interrelation of divine sovereignty and omnitemporality, human free will, and human moral responsibility is among the secondary doctrines that I am least confident of accurately describing, about the only specific that I have confidently concluded is that the answer has to be something paradoxical to us (a bit like how the trinity is paradoxical to human reasoning), and tend to think that all simple doctrines about it are probably missing something. I guess that I would default to âGod is sovereign over creation, time, and our salvation; knows the future because he is outside of time; we are morally responsible for our actions and have some measure of free will in them (definitely not complete libertarian free will or strict determinism); and some version of election (collective or individual) âtookâ place.â
The Holy Spirit still does not work like that. If you knew it you would know it also
I s giving you a get out clause. You should have taken it
You are now splitting hairs
You have never had anything to do with engineering then?
You now they work to less than 1000 of an inch tolerance?
How precise do you want it?
Bit I di d not only mention engineering.
You had better hope that if you go under the knife the surgeon is a saved Christian!
Scripture does not dictate reality and neither can Paul.
Scripture was not written or vetted by God in any shape or form.
You are taking it beyond where it is meant to go, just as the YECs do.
Scripture is about God and spirituality, it has nothing to do with science or human capabilities. Sin does not affect the minutia of society or its ability to function properly , efficiently or even correctly. People are decent and mostly work for each other . emergency services are not manned by only Christians. Doing good is not the sole realm of Christianity. Society is neither flawed nor corrupt. If you think scripture says otherwise then you must be reading it wrong. otherwise scripture is false at least in part.
However, if we are going to use non scriptural examples, most machines or working have a larger degree of tolerance that means they do not need to be âperfectâ in the strictest sense of the word, and neither does scripture. Scripture functions perfectly well without the curse of inerrancy.
Letâs be clear - Augustine would have understood the genre of Genesis 1 differently than YECs. What in the world does this have to do with what he would have understood by âinformationâ?? Because he understood Genesis 1 as allegory/poetry, he would have denied that information was present in, say, the Gospels
Also, there are plenty of inerrancy-affirming theologians who also understand Genesis 1 as poetry or allegory (e.g., those who advocate for the framework hypothesis).
So are you going to tell me that I canât use the term âinerrancyâ to describe the perspective of these modern inerrancy advocates that use that very term to describe their beliefs, because (like Augustine) their perspective of Genesis 1 differs from that of inerrancy-affirming YECs?
Observing that Augustine understood the genre of Genesis 1 (or countless other sections of Scripture) differently than we do is still worlds away from claiming he would have understood the word (or concept) of âinformationâ differently.
This entire conversation remains baffling to me. The claim Iâm seeing is that Augustine understood inerrancy categorically differently than we do today. The only real evidence Iâm seeing offered in support of said claim is that he understood certain parts of the Bible to be different in genre than that of some/many people today.
This seems a major category mistake, if not a subtle equivocation⌠Inerrancy means believing something to be totally true and without error in its intended truth-claim(s). Observing that different interpreters understand different passages to be different in genre seem to me to have no bearing whatsoever on the question of what these various interpreters meant by their embrace of inerrancy.
Preamble: Members of the board of directors, administrators, and faculty members of The Masterâs Seminary recognize that any doctrinal statement is but a fallible human attempt to summarize and systematize the riches of an infallible divine revelation. But this in no way detracts from the importance of such a statement. The affirmations which follow carefully specify our teaching position with regard to the major biblical doctrines, and thus provide a framework for curriculum and instruction at the seminary. They also provide an anchor to protect the institution against theological drift. For this reason, members of the board of directors, administration, and faculty members are annually required to sign a statement affirming agreement with this Statement of Faith.
The Holy Scriptures:
We teach that the Bible is Godâs written revelation to man, and thus the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, constitute the Word of God. That is, we teach the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture, that every word is equally breathed out by God in all its parts (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
We teach that God spoke in His written Word by a process of dual authorship. The Holy Spirit so superintended the human authors that, through their individual personalities and different styles of writing, they composed and recorded Godâs Word to man (2 Peter 1:20â21) without error in the whole or in the part (Matthew 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:16).
We teach the literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture, which affirms that, whereas there may be several applications of any given passage of Scripture, there is but one true interpretation. The meaning of Scripture is to be found as one diligently and consistently applies this interpretive method with the aid of the illumination of the Holy Spirit (John 7:17; 16:12â15; 1 Corinthians 2:7â15; 1 John 2:20). It is the responsibility of believers to ascertain carefully the true intent and meaning of Scripture, recognizing that proper application is binding on all generations. Yet the truth of Scripture stands in judgment of men; never do men stand in judgment of it.
In practice, most inerrancy advocates think the Bible has vastly more history than it actually does. Inerrancy and history are intertwined in their eyes as the Bible is narrating salvation history. They take simple biblical narration as what it appears to be to them. Augustine has a very different hermeneutic than modern Christians in some ways but he pretty much believes the Biblical stories as well. So his view is very close to modern inerrancy proponents. His hermeneutic differs markedly in places though. In some places he goes beyond sola scripture, in others he seems to affirm it. As noted, there is no reason to assume his own views and practices were always consistent. The hermeneutic matters:
But the problem for DeYoung is that what the Fathers mean as âwithout errorâ is very, very different from what I suppose he means by inerrancy. According to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, âthe text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis.â Simply put, this means that, genre allowing, we are to interpret Scripture according to its literal sense. For DeYoung and modern-day inerrantists, it is this literal sense of the Bible that is inerrant. But the Fathers had an entirely different view. As patristics scholar D. H. Williams summarizes, âAs a generalization about the patristic mind, it is fair to say that the fathers affirmed an infallible Bible, although it was not an infallibility of the text so much as much as it was an infallibility of the divine intention behind the textâ (Evangelicals and Tradition , 91). . . . But hereâs the rub: one of the primary ways that the Fathers harmonized problem passages was to deny the literal sense of the text . That is to say, the â inerrant truthâ of a passage was often found not in its literal sense, but in its moral or allegorical one. Or, to put it yet another way, the Fathers âclaimed that points of obscurity or even contradiction within the Bible provided an oppportunity for the Spirit to work in a Christian heart because the dilemma was more than the human heart could comprehendâ (Evangelicals and Tradition , 104).
