Inerrancy: Wednesday’s Questions

Posted on September 14, 2011 by Jay F Guin

These questions relate to my essay from Monday morning —

Do you agree with Apologetics Press that a soul’s salvation could depend on the age of the earth?

Do you agree with the tests of inerrancy found in the 1978 Chicago Statement?

Do you agree with the hermeneutical principles found in the 1982 Chicago Statement?

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.

View all posts by Jay F Guin →

This entry was posted in Inerrancy and the Canon, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Inerrancy: Wednesday’s Questions

Bob Brandon says:

September 14, 2011 at 6:43 am

(1) No; for those who might, see Matt. 23. I suspect that those who do so themselves lack competent faith and are hardly in any position to admonish anyone.

(2) No; no reason to attempt to establish faith on human opinion.

(2) Likewise no; no reason to attempt to establish faith on human opinion.
Royce Ogle says:

September 14, 2011 at 7:45 am

There is one “salvation issue”, what have you done about Jesus? Are you presently trusting him alone or not?

The Holy Scriptures is God’s revelation to us and a record of what he has accomplished for wicked sinners through the worth and work of Jesus who is the Christ and they are the final authority for faith and practice.

In my opinion the root of all criticism, all questioning of minute details, and every effort to edit, spring from unbelief. When the truth claims of Scripture are called into question so is the author. The things that really matter, the nature of God, His eternal attributes, and the saving work of Jesus are very clear. Either believe it or not.
Alan says:

September 14, 2011 at 7:47 am

1) no. that was easy.

2) much harder question. I’m not certain we agree on which “scriptures” are inerrant. We undoubtedly agree that what the Holy Spirit said was and is true and accurate. I would go further and say that what the inspired writer originally wrote was and is true and accurate. I would not go so far as to say what the copyist, and the more recent translator / paraphraser / commentator wrote was true and accurate. But I would say that God has preserved his Word in complete truth and accuracy, and a careful student can still find that true and accurate Word. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. If that is true, then it would be a simple task for God to preserve his Word. Given what Jesus said about the importance of every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, I can’t imagine God failing to make all those words available to people today.

3) I don’t see much to argue with in the 1982 statement on hermeneutics. For example, I firmly believe that the Genesis account of creation is not mythical, and likewise I believe the flood account. I also recognize that God was communicating something to us that we cannot possibly understand in full. My mental picture of what all that means might be flawed. But the error, if any, is in my interpretation, not in God’s explanation.
Deut 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.
Price says:

September 14, 2011 at 7:47 am

1) Absolutely not… the earth is old…

2 & 3…Not sure… may be above me…

How would those concepts deal with the following verse ??

I Cor 7:25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.
Emmett says:

September 14, 2011 at 8:48 am

1) No. But I myself am a young earth creationist. I haven’t always been. I used to accept the claims of science on the age of the earth. I’ve come to realize that the dating methods are a massive fraud, and that it is not necessary to accommodate the apparent meaning of scripture to conventional science, which historically has been wrong as much as it has been right. It all comes down to how we interpret the evidence, just as it does in the current discussion – because how we interpret the data, whether scientific or biblical, depends on much more than the data themselves.

2) In general I think I do.

3) Ditto.

Isaiah 55:10, 11 – God’s affirmation that His word will accomplish His purpose, is pertinent to me.
Todd Collier says:

September 14, 2011 at 10:30 am

I pretty much track Emmett on #1. I could not get the 1978 link to open but I agreed with the 1982 statement.
hank says:

September 14, 2011 at 11:12 am

“There is one “salvation issue”, what have you done about Jesus? Are you presently trusting him alone or not?”

That would depend on how you would define “trusting him alone.” Because a lot of people believe and teach that “trusting him alone” means that the salvation of sinners is entirely up to God and that man has absolutely no part and/or responsibility in his own salvation.

BTW, I am still curious as to how those who believe the above would make sense of Peter’s words on Pentecost when at the end of his semon he exhorted his audience to “save themselves”? If nothing else, does that not prove that those sinners in some sense, had some role, in saving their souls? If not, why did Peter say that?

How can people argue that sinners have NOTHING to do with their own salvation when the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to challenge lost sinners to “save themselves.”
ao says:

September 14, 2011 at 11:58 am

Thanks, Hank, for bringing Calvinism vs. Arminianism into this. I, too, was thinking, “You know what this discussion about inerrancy is missing? A criticism of Reformed soteriology.”
Royce says:

September 14, 2011 at 11:59 am

Hank you should read the whole sentence. In fact you should read ALL Peter said in Acts. Save from what?

I believe Jesus is sufficient and many don’t. It’s about that simple. Man centered theology ignores much of Holy Scripture.
ao says:

September 14, 2011 at 12:06 pm

1. No.

2 & 3. No. My big concern is that these Chicago statements want to rule out the possibility that Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology because they feel like that makes the Bible scientifically inaccurate. So, by their definition, anyone who believes that Genesis 1 is ancient (as opposed to modern) cosmology denies the inerrancy of the Bible. I don’t agree with that.
CyclingDude says:

September 14, 2011 at 1:26 pm

Do you agree with Apologetics Press that a soul’s salvation could depend on the age of the earth?

No, the article is yet another instance of building yet another ideology as a reaction to the statements and beliefs of another group. These people need to have the confidence to stand firm in what they believe and let their lives display the power and infallibility of scripture rather than rooting their faith in modern rational arguments. I believe the motivation of any such claim is founded in fear. Fear that should any scripture be considered ambiguous or factual mistaken, then the ability to discern, within the whole of scripture, what is true and not true, is lost and we find ourselves living in a pit of complete relativism. I completely reject any such conclusions primarily because such logic is a product of modern rational thought. God needs no one to defend the truth of scripture and most attempts end up causing more damage than good. In my experience the majority of believers that are committed to following Jesus hold that scripture is infallible because they have witnessed its power in changing their life and the lives of others, not because of rational arguments that defend the “inerrancy” of literal interpretation.

Do you agree with the tests of inerrancy found in the 1978 Chicago Statement?

Most of them, but I read contradiction in some. What is the purpose of any such statement? I can’t think of any outside of endless debate and judging others.

Do you agree with the hermeneutical principles found in the 1982 Chicago Statement?

No, the Christian faith is not rooted in intellectualism. Men and women can read scripture and derive the intended message. I do believe that God’s Spirit leads the interpretative process. I also believe that there are degrees of interpretative correctness. In other words, I can be taught a better way of understanding a specific subset of scripture, but that does not necessarily preclude that my previous understanding can be categorized as sinful or not pleasing to God.
Alan says:

September 14, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Cycling Dude wrote:

No, the Christian faith is not rooted in intellectualism. Men and women can read scripture and derive the intended message.

And yet, Paul told Timothy to apply himself diligently so that he would handle the Word of Truth correctly (2 TIm 2:15). There is a correct way, and an incorrect way, to use the scriptures. And learning the correct way takes diligence. Those who teach are judged more strictly so we ought to study carefully. (James 3:1, Matt 22:29, John 3:10, etc)
Jerry Starling says:

September 14, 2011 at 2:25 pm

1. No. As several have pointed out, belief of who Jesus is, trust in him, and faithfulness (steadfastness) in following him is how we find salvation – not in our belief about how old the earth is.

2. No, for the reasons stated above: we do not need to build our belief system on any human definition by which we can accuse or excuse anyone else.

3. See #2.

Jerry
CyclingDude says:

September 14, 2011 at 4:03 pm

Alan,

My reply was a response to Question #3 and specifically within the context of the principle stated below. I was not attempting to imply that we shouldn’t study or that learning doesn’t take diligent effort.

“We deny that the message of scripture derives from, or is dictated by, the interpreter’s understanding. Thus we deny that the “horizons” of the Biblical writer and the interpreter may rightly “fuse” is such a way what the text communicates to the interpreter is not ultimately controlled by the expressed meaning of Scripture.”

I’m always intrigued how doctrinal statements so frequently separate out the human experience within their dogmatic claims. All human beings derive message and meaning of literature through their respective interpretation and subsequent understanding. I’m baffled as to how anyone could deny that.
Alan says:

September 14, 2011 at 4:09 pm

CyclingDude,

I think the point is that God knew what he meant when he spoke. Proper interpretation has to arrive at *that* meaning. The truth is invariant. It’s not one truth for you and a different one for me. If we come to contradictory interpretations, at least one of us is wrong.
HistoryGuy says:

September 14, 2011 at 5:50 pm

Jay,
#1 no, #2 no, #3 no.

#1. The bulk of Jewish/Christian history believes the earth is younger than older, but there has never been a consistent view about the age of the earth, though embracing a literal view of the creation account.

#2 and #3. Hermeneutics have strength and weaknesses, but given the array used in ‘orthodox’ christianity throughout time, I am more focused on ‘truth’ than how one defends it. Truth can exist even if defended by a poor hermeneutic.

I attempted to summarize my view of inerrancy at to what it applies, in my post HistoryGuy on September 14th, 2011 at 1:18 am @ /2011/09/inerrancy-tuesdays-questions
Price says:

September 14, 2011 at 5:57 pm

Would there be some instances where the truth allows me to honor my conscience and someone else to honor theirs ??
CyclingDude says:

September 14, 2011 at 6:29 pm

Alan,

That sounds like a simple concept until you break it down and think through the practical realities. If individual believers can find the correct meaning of scripture through individual study then the possibility of certain parts of scripture holding multiple correct meanings must be true. If only one particular meaning can be assigned to any specific section or verse of scripture then a higher authority is required for scripture interpretation (e.g. Catholic ideology). You can’t have it both ways (likely evidenced by the many factions within the Christian faith). You use the term contradictory, maybe complementary would get me closer. Maybe the definition of truth needs some discussion. I do disagree with the idea that there is only right or wrong. That argument is steeped in modern rationalism. The NT authors would have understood and likely agreed to the concept that there are degrees of being correct. One maybe wrong, but could also be more or less correct than another believer over certain beliefs. I can think of several very plausible reasons why God would allow someone to have a less correct understanding of a specific section of scripture than others at a certain point in time.

I’m most definitely open for correction if someone can explain where my logic is flawed.
Alan says:

September 14, 2011 at 6:58 pm

CyclingDude wrote:

If individual believers can find the correct meaning of scripture through individual study then the possibility of certain parts of scripture holding multiple correct meanings must be true.

I strongly disagree. Either they come to the same conclusion, or at least one of them is wrong.

I think you are wrestling with the imperfection of the reader, not of the message. There is also a near-infinite variety of real world situations where we need to apply scripture, and of course there can be varying opinions about the implication of a truth for a specific situation. The existence of varying fallible opinions on how to apply a truth to a given situation does not imply that the truth itself is ambiguous.

God certainly gives us leeway to learn and to grow. The fact that a truth is singular doesn’t eliminate God’s patience nor his grace toward people who do not grasp that truth.
Jerry Starling says:

September 14, 2011 at 9:19 pm

To Alan

Either they come to the same conclusion, or at least one of them is wrong.

Surely there are depths of understanding of a given truth that take that truth to a different plane.

Paul said, “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I understood as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things” (1 Corinthians 13).

In Galatians 4 he also spoke of the difference between childhood, when we differ little from a slave, and adulthood, when we enter into the freedom for which Christ set us free.

In the one, we are slavishly following rules. In the other, we are walking by the Spirit. This, btw, does not mean you ignore rules; it means your relationship to the rules is different. You freely obey in love, not as a matter of “keeping the rules.”
Hank says:

September 14, 2011 at 10:14 pm

Royce wrote:

“Hank you should read the whole sentence. In fact you should read ALL Peter said in Acts. Save from what? I believe Jesus is sufficient and many don’t. It’s about that simple. Man centered theology ignores much of Holy Scripture.”

Royce, you keep avoiding the question. The record here will show that while I have addressed whatever it is you have asked of me….you have not actually answered much of what has been directed toward you. In fact, more than once, you have written statements about how you were done with this site – do you remember any of those?. Either way, you still avoid the most simplest of questions. Here is what I most recently asked:

“I am still curious as to how those who believe the above would make sense of Peter’s words on Pentecost when at the end of his sermon he exhorted his audience to “save themselves”? If nothing else, does that not prove that those sinners in some sense, had some role, in saving their souls? If not, why did Peter say that?
How can people argue that sinners have NOTHING to do with their own salvation when the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to challenge lost sinners to “save themselves.”

Regarding the above, you answered:

“Hank you should read the whole sentence. In fact you should read ALL Peter said in Acts. Save from what?”

Royce, with all due respect…was not the inspired apostle Peter exhorting them to be saved from their sins and to become Christians?? What do you mean by asking “save from what?”??? Obviously, Peter was exhorting them to be saved from their lost state and to become Christians. He told them to “repent and be baptized” and then went on to further exhort them to “save yourselves”.

You (and others) are the one(s) who have argued that a lost sinner has nothing to do with his salvation (he contributes nothing) and so I respectfully ask you to explain what exactly Peter meant when he told them to “save yourselves”? Was he not talking about salvation? Please explain….

Or at least, quit arguing that a man has absolutely nothing to do (has no part) with his being saved. Because if a man has NOTHING to do with his salvation, then everyone will be saved.

You just really have to pick a position…
Price says:

September 14, 2011 at 10:54 pm

Alan… I was thinking of a couple of examples where polar opposites of interpretation were both true… A first century example was the eating of meat offered to idols… Some thought it was an abomination…another family thought there was nothing wrong with getting a good deal on a side of beef cooked up by a bunch of idiots who danced around a rock…Paul’s moderation of truth was based upon their conscience…

A modern day example might be the consuming of alcohol…Some people believe that 2 drinks is in moderation and avoids “drunk”…others think 1 drink is 1 drink drunk and wouldn’t drink a drop… polar opposite opinions but based on the conscience modifier, both would be true… Perhaps the debate over IM is complicated by this very conscience issue…??

Anyway, I thought those were a couple of examples where the truth is modified according to one’s own personal conscience and two people could strongly agree and both be right…
Keith Brenton says:

September 14, 2011 at 10:54 pm

Let me start by admitting I am way off base by saying this, and apologize ahead of time.

I have a neighbor who is 14. He’s a Down Syndrome kid, sweet and strong-willed and has maybe a first-or-second grade comprehension of life.

If Benton never understands the difference between young earth and old earth creation theories or between Calvinist and Arminian soteriology or between inerrancy of scripture and sufficiency of scripture, can he still be saved by a simple, child-like faith in Jesus, the Son of God? Can we trust God to extend grace to Benton? Or is he just a casualty of insufficient religious intellect?

If God can save Benton, can He save me even though I don’t understand all of these issues, or don’t care enough to research them and reach the one and only correct answer to each one, or spent my time doing something that seemed more Christlike to me than arguing about them?

Because I undrrstand there are folks who really enjoy and are stretched and blessed and fulfilled by discussing these things, but right now I am just about sick to death of arguing about them and pretty well convinced that I’m not going to lead anyone closer to Christ by doing so, including me.

And I see Benton, and I see a gospel that is simple enough that a child — or a great teen like him — can understand, and I just feel like I’m wasting my time with the kind of blogging I’ve been doing and that I really need to concentrate on showing love to people and mention Jesus once in a while and see what happens from there.
abasnar says:

September 14, 2011 at 11:28 pm

I only go for the 1st question

Two levels:
A) It is not a requirement for being baptized – so most likely not a salvation issue

B) But an old earth gives us an origin of death prior to sin, and this causes a conflict with the basics oft he Gospel.

Alexander
HistoryGuy says:

September 14, 2011 at 11:32 pm

Keith,
Some Christians like to relieve stress and talk with other Christians about tough topics because they have been working hard to serve others all day. Further, many ‘intellectual issues’ discussed here can help struggling intellectuals come to Christ. Paul cared about the educated elites as well as the poor [less educated] widows, as do I. As a pragmatic agnostic colleague of mine would say, if you feel this topic is a waste of your time, then by all means, do not participate. From what I know about you, rejoice in your salvation. From what I know about Benton, rejoice in his salvation. Now, allow me to love you and encourage you; get some rest, you seem to have had a long day.
HistoryGuy says:

September 15, 2011 at 12:22 am

Price,
One can learn parts or levels of truth, but the notion of levels is predicated upon coming to better know that whole truth (singular). Additionally, both your examples have an absolute truth to them. First, idols are not real because there is only 1 God/meat sacrificed to idols is really just meat. Second, drunkenness is a sin, not the consumption of alcohol. Nevertheless, the exercise of our freedom should not become a stumbling block to the weak [who have a hard time accepting the truth.] Paul told the weak and strong Corinthians the truth, and then asked them to deal with it in love. The truth is true whether one can grasp it or not, and some things were non-negotiable. For example, the Jewish-Christians in Luke 24:53 would have to eventually accept God’s truth Heb. 13:10.

I will not take up your time with the IM/AC debate on an inerrancy thread. Additionally, if you are considering positing that IM is a matter of conscience, then you should become intimately aware of that view by studying its history. It is an exclusive position involving affirmations and denials. Back to inerrancy! Thank you for your thoughts, I have enjoyed reading them.
Wendy says:

September 15, 2011 at 1:24 am

Alexander, “But an old earth gives us an origin of death prior to sin, and this causes a conflict with the basics oft he Gospel.” is only a problem is you interpret the “death” as physical death, not spiritual death
CyclingDude says:

September 15, 2011 at 1:47 am

Keith,
I don’t find your reply even remotely off-base. If you don’t want to waste time reading this response, please read the last sentence.

Alan,
Thanks for the friendly spirit of debate. You and I are not going to come to an agreement on a couple points. I don’t care and I appreciate the opportunity to debate and interact. There was weight in much of what you said and it helped me considerably as I thought the issue through.

Jerry/Price,
I think your thoughts hit a home run. Although you didn’t explicitly say so, your replies reminded me that our faith is founded on individual principles, not inferred commands; the greatest principle being love. Both replies caused me to question my emphatic statement that believers can individually interpret scripture and establish true meaning only if certain parts of scripture hold multiple correct meanings. I no longer believe that must be true. I fell into the same trap as those defining inerrancy doctrines. Maybe there is only one absolute truth assigned to each portion of scripture, but I don’t think finding that truth is nearly as important to God as my growth and maturity towards being like Jesus. Scripture is going to provide the truth that I need based on my level of maturity and the two cannot be separated. And my maturity is not based on my knowledge of scriptural facts or acceptance of specific doctrines. It’s defined by my reflection of Jesus. As God’s word, it’s dynamic and living and cannot be neatly boxed in by any human doctrine, nor does it need any doctrine for defense.

I wrote a fantastic rebuttal to Alan after reading his last reply. But something seemed wrong. So I decided to take a walk, which turned into a really long walk, and I realized that my thoughts regarding the inerrancy discussion were seriously flawed. I had allowed the disease of legalism, so ingrained into me growing up, to once again cloud my thinking. I was arguing against something that has no relevance or impact on my faith, or the faith of anyone else I know. Scripture is mystical, magical, and powerful and without question transforms lives. That’s why I believe its God’s word. I don’t care if it contains “mistakes” or not.

And Keith…I read your post shortly after walking through the door, it validated everything I had just worked through…thanks for being off-base, apology not accepted.
CyclingDude says:

September 15, 2011 at 2:08 am

For a great article on the age of the earth. Take a look at Patrick Mead’s blog. He’s the go-to science guy for me anyway.

http://tentpegs.patrickmead.net/?p=516
David P Himes says:

September 15, 2011 at 5:37 am

John 5:39-40 NIV
39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Sometimes I feel we miss the point of Scriptures. According to Jesus, we think we’ll find eternal life in Scripture, but, in fact, we’ll only find eternal life in Jesus.

There is obviously a difference.
Price says:

September 15, 2011 at 5:58 am

History Guy… i agree that there is an ultimate truth in both of the examples…That was sort of the point… OK to eat meat, OK to drink in moderation…except for who ?? Those whom it would violate their conscience… The sin wasn’t connected to the freedom but rather how a person responded to his/her own conscience… right ?

There was no rebuke from Paul toward those persons who felt like it was wrong…even though technically is was OK… unless they felt like it was wrong, then they were right..So, if they felt opposed to doing something that was technically right and did it anyway, it was sin. That makes what they thought applicable to the truth doesn’t it ?? How can one be guilty of sin by doing something that is not a sin.. it appears only if it violates one’s conscience..
Alan says:

September 15, 2011 at 6:32 am

Jerry Starling wrote:

Surely there are depths of understanding of a given truth that take that truth to a different plane.

Agreed. One person may come closer to complete understanding than another. I may understand more fully tomorrow than I do today.

Price wrote:

I was thinking of a couple of examples where polar opposites of interpretation were both true… A first century example was the eating of meat offered to idols…

I would say that the same truth leads to different applications in that case. “But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” (Rom 14:23). So, there’s a single true principle in this passage, which leads to different valid applications (not really different valid interpretations).

CyclingDude wrote:

Thanks for the friendly spirit of debate. You and I are not going to come to an agreement on a couple points

That’s ok with me. My wife could say the same thing, but we still love each other! This comment thread is for expressing our opinions. If we all thought the same thing that would be pretty boring.

I’m comfortable with disagreement. But I do think that the truth we all seek is the same singular truth. I don’t think our salvation is tied to attaining all that truth. That would be a really scary place to be. If that were the case, every time I learned something new, it would mean I had been lost until now. And it would mean everyone who hadn’t learned that yet would still be lost. I’d become a real pain to be around, because I’d always be desperately trying to persuade people around me about my latest discovery. That mindset completely ignores grace.
Jerry Starling says:

September 15, 2011 at 10:19 am

Alan,
We must never forget that Jesus said, “I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life. No man comes to the Father but by me.”

While we keep seeking truth in correct interpretations of different statements in the Scripture, we need to focus in each of these on how these relate to Jesus.

Take an example: one of my pet peeves is to hear someone after serving the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper say something like, “Now, separate and apart from the Lord’s Supper, this is a convenient time to take up the collection.” I do not believe there is anything involved in service to God that is “separate and apart” from what we are called to remember in the Lord’s Supper, which is the Lord Himself. Not just His death. That is included, of course – but also His perfect life for us, His teachings, His claims, His resurrection, His promise to come again, and (yes) even His body, which is the church are all to be remembered. So why do we insist that the contribution is “separate and apart” from all that Jesus is and has done for us?

In fact, Paul even said that our giving is a proof of the sincerity of our love (see 2 Corinthians 8:8). Couldn’t the same be said of our obedience to each and every command (not my inference, but real commands) given by God?

And at the heart of it all is Jesus, who is THE Truth, and his apostles, who (among other things) charge us not to quarrel about words (see 1 Timothy 6:4).

Jerry
Alan says:

September 15, 2011 at 10:34 am

Jerry wrote:

We must never forget that Jesus said, “I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life. No man comes to the Father but by me.”

Amen. But we have no right to call Jesus our Lord if we are not doing what he tells us, not doing the will of his Father. (Matt 7:21, Luke 6:46). So we need to understand what he has told us to do. To know what he calls us to do, the Sermon on the Mount is a great place to start, since that is one context where he made that point.
Alabama John says:

September 15, 2011 at 12:00 pm

God is not the author of confusion.

If following exactly is so important, then the God that loves us (us being all mankind from the beginning) and wants us all to be with Him would of made it very plain and simple to obey what was necessary to achieve that goal.

I myself could spell it out better than we think God did.

As it is to way too many, He is actually presented more as a cruel jokster seeing how we can be fooled into not achieving heaven.

Every time we declare that we must be smarter, and able to argue every minute point we envision exactly correct or be lost eternally we are slamming God and judging God and that is a sin if ever there was one.

Who would have an interest in all this confusion and arguing anyway?
The devil, that’s who and he sure has done a great job hasn’t he.
Alan says:

September 15, 2011 at 12:05 pm

Alabama John wrote:

Every time we declare that we must be smarter, and able to argue every minute point we envision exactly correct or be lost eternally we are slamming God and judging God and that is a sin if ever there was one.

I wonder where you saw someone advocating that position. I haven’t seen it here.
abasnar says:

September 15, 2011 at 1:21 pm

@ Wendy

You wrote

Alexander, “But an old earth gives us an origin of death prior to sin, and this causes a conflict with the basics oft he Gospel.” is only a problem is you interpret the “death” as physical death, not spiritual death

I am aware of this re-interpretation. But I don’t belive it. The reason is simple: I think it is strange when we begin re-difining biblical terms as soon as “science” calls us to disbelieve the Bible. For me it is a matter of integrity to stand firm to what Bible terms mean – or, if “science” is right, to drop the whole matter of faith. But redifining Biblical terms in order to harmonize them with a secular philosophy is not acceptable for me.

Alexander
Jerry Starling says:

September 15, 2011 at 2:42 pm

Alan,

You are right. The position Alabama John described is not advocated by anyone on this page. Yet, it is in our common background. Too many of us have seen too many who derive commandments of God almost out of thin air. An incidental event becomes a binding example; a tenuous inference becomes a necessary inference, which is then bound on all. Of course, MY inferences are very rational and necessary; OTHER PEOPLE’S inferences are not fairly inferred (tongue-in-cheek). This discussion is moving from inerrancy to Biblical interpretation or Hermeneutics, but somehow how we read and interpret the Bible is tied in with how we view the Bible. Is it a book with hidden rules which we must decipher? Or is it the story of God’s love for us and His desire for a loving relationship with us?

I’m sure most would say it is the latter. But I grew up in the 1940’s & 50’s wondering why God made some of the things we thought were so important so obscure. I suspect that quite a few others who comment here did as well.

That is why we are so insistent on stressing that Jesus is THE Truth and that the will of the Father is for us to follow Him. We have seen too much strife over man’s opinions presented as God’s Will. And we are tired of it, for it is destroying the fellowship in which we grew up and which we love. Is that statement too broad? Thankfully, it is. But the fact to which it points is very broad as well.

Jerry
Wendy says:

September 15, 2011 at 3:52 pm

Alexader, that the death is spiriual and not physical has nothing to do with science or a secular philosophy but is inherent in the sacred text itself. God makes manking in “our image”. What image is that? It is NOT a physical image. The incarnation is 800-2000 years in the future (depending on when you believe the Torah was written). mankind is made in the spiritual image of God. We resemble God in that we have spiritual natures (and the animal kingdom does not). Genesis 1-3 is about spiritual matters, not physical. The physical details (dust, the rib) have spiritual significance.
A good rule of Biblical interpretation is that a passage cannot mean to us what it never meant to the original recipients of it. We are SO conditioned to the reality of Jesus that we subconsciously read “physical image of God” into Genesis 1-3 but that would NOT have been how the Jews of the Mosaic age heard it.
Wendy says:

September 15, 2011 at 3:53 pm

mankinD too (manking is an interesting typo.. Jesus is king, not man) I need coffee…
David P Himes says:

September 15, 2011 at 4:02 pm

exactly right, Jerry.
Alan says:

September 15, 2011 at 4:13 pm

You are right. The position Alabama John described is not advocated by anyone on this page. Yet, it is in our common background.

Sure. But Matt 7:21 and Luke 6:46 are still in the Bible. So if we’re going to call Jesus Lord, we need to find out what God’s will is, and we need to obey it. It’s insufficient merely to say God loves me. There’s a reason Christians are called “disciples”. We are not passive participants in this relationship. It’s he who “does the will of the Father” who will be saved.

That doesn’t mean Christians all have to be Bible scholars. Church leaders will be held accountable for teaching their churches about God’s will. They had better study diligently. To him who has been given much, much more will be required.
CyclingDude says:

September 15, 2011 at 4:41 pm

Alan,

Your point is well taken and I doubt anyone could make much of an argument against the need to obey the one you call Lord. The two verses you provided are excellent references to support your point. Especially since the words Jesus tells us to put into practice (his commands) are there for us to read in the text building up to his warning that they must be taken seriously. With a little effort, they are not difficult to understand. I might be mistaken (like I need to say that…), but I think each one is directly related to loving your neighbor, except for a couple related to hypocrisy.
Alabama John says:

September 15, 2011 at 4:42 pm

Jerry,

thank you, you understand.

I just got back from a dear sisters funeral and heard too many stating they hoped they had DONE ENOUGH to go where she is.

That constant doubt about understanding and searching but not ENOUGH of the scriptures to be pure enough is what we have been running away from.

Many are following us to a first time real love of God and not a love of scriptures above all, thank God!
eric says:

September 15, 2011 at 5:10 pm

emmett

I felt the same way on the dating of the earth. One day i asked God about how the light from a star millions of light years away was already reaching my eyes here and no lie he led me to a book call the Science of God the same night. It’s a great read weather or not you care about the age of the earth the author Gerald Schroeder has a lot of good things to say about reaching those in the scientific world for Christ.
Alabama John says:

September 15, 2011 at 5:26 pm

Alan,

Please simply write out what we must do to be saved and stay in Gods good graces.

1-Hear
2-Believe
3-Obey
4-

The old law God gave Moses was only 10.

The harder we make it the harder it gets to obey until after a while trying to obey is the dominant theme and love and grace disappears.

That’s where we are now.

We must change or fear for our souls for going beyond and taking a bunch with us.
Alan says:

September 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm

I think each one is directly related to loving your neighbor, except for a couple related to hypocrisy.

Well, let’s see… He talks about being the light of the world; being persecuted; being more righteous than the Pharisees; resolving conflict; not being lustful; keeping your marriage vows; keeping control of the tongue; turning the other cheek; loving enemies… oh, and being perfect as God is perfect. That’s chapter 5.

He talks about doing acts of righteousness in secret; praying; fasting; storing treasure in heaven; avoiding love of money; trusting God for our needs; not being judgmental; not being a hypocrite; not giving dogs what is sacred (hmm…gotta think about that one); asking God for what we need; treating others as we wish to be treated; and setting high standards for ourselves (narrow gate).

A lot of that does have to do with various interpersonal relationships. Other parts have to do with our submission and dependence upon God. And he repeatedly warns us to have high standards for ourselves, not to settle for the easy path. He warns that the easy way leads to destruction.

That’s what concerns me when people characterize the Bible as just a story about how God loves us. That’s the easy part of the message. Apparently the other parts are also essential to salvation.
Alan says:

September 15, 2011 at 5:35 pm

Please simply write out what we must do to be saved and stay in Gods good graces.

See my latest post on the Thursday thread.

When we baptize someone at my church, we ask them if they believe certain basic facts about Jesus (Son of God, sinless life, died for sin, rose from the grave) and then we ask them to make the good confession (“Jesus is Lord”). Then we baptize them. That’s what they need to do to become a Christian. To remain a Christian, they must remain faithful to those things — not renouncing the basic facts about Jesus, and continuing to live with Jesus as Lord. That means learning God’s will, repenting when needed, obeying what is learned… walking in the light, and being forgiven when we fall and getting back up to continue walking in the light. That may not be a perfect summary but that’s the idea.
Alan says:

September 15, 2011 at 5:45 pm

See my latest post on the Thursday thread.

Ok I was officially confused. I was refering to my previous post on this thread.

Time for me to move on to other responsibilities. Y’all play nice 😉
Jerry Starling says:

September 15, 2011 at 6:28 pm

Alan,

Did you read the first sentence of my final paragraph in my post above (9/15/11 @2:42pm)?

That is why we are so insistent on stressing that Jesus is THE Truth and that the will of the Father is for us to follow Him.

There are many things that are true that have little to do with Jesus, who is Truth in the flesh – and the Word of God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14). He is the Word by which we are sanctified (cf. John 17:17), because He is Truth and He is the Logos or Word.

Yes, we must be disciples of Jesus. That means learning and following Him. As you said, the Sermon on the Mount is a great place to begin. But what in that sermon has to do with how to “do church”? It has to do with kingdom living as light and salt in the world.

More than 30 years ago I cringed when I heard an elder state that some people were talking too much about love. He thought we needed to spend more time on the identifying marks of the church. Well, Jesus Himself said, “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples.” Now when was that? When we love one another as Jesus loves us. (John 13:34) Have you ever noticed how much Jesus said He loves us? “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.” (John 15:9)

He went on from that to declare

If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide [cf. Galatians 5:22-23 & following] so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.” (John 15:10-17, Emphasis added)

Did you notice how many times in just this brief text Jesus linked keeping his commandments with loving one another in the same way He loves us, which is as the Father loves Him?

When you want to talk about keeping His commandments, do not trivialize the commandments. His commandment is a love as deep as the Father’s love for His Christ – and as exalted as the Savior’s love for all of us.

When Jesus speaks of doing His commandments, He is not talking about rituals, procedures, and organizational structure. He is talking about the deepest level of our hearts and souls.

Do not disparage that by saying,

But Matt 7:21 and Luke 6:46 are still in the Bible. So if we’re going to call Jesus Lord, we need to find out what God’s will is, and we need to obey it.

What do you think Matt 7:21 and Luke 6:46 are about if it is not loving one another as Jesus loves us? How can we call Him Lord in the absence of that kind of love?

When we love one another that way, we won’t worry if someone claps during a song in worship – or even if we sing a song while remembering the Lord in the bread and fruit of the vine. We just might not even object if someone stands and raises his or her hands in praise and prayer.

The traditions that so many live for have become more important to them than loving each other – and above all, loving God and His Son.

This tirade is too long already, but some things frustrate me – just as the Pharisees frustrated my Lord when they put their traditions about the Sabbath ahead of the needs of hurting people.

I fear too many of us are more like the Pharisees than we are like Jesus – and congratulate ourselves that we are better than others because “we follow the New Testament pattern” – forgetting that the real Pattern for us to follow is Jesus Himself.

Jerry
Price says:

September 15, 2011 at 6:41 pm

Eric…sort of the same thing happened to me…loved that book…don’t have the ability to critique it but it really caused you to think…
Jay Guin says:

September 15, 2011 at 7:22 pm

Alabama John wrote,

I just got back from a dear sisters funeral and heard too many stating they hoped they had DONE ENOUGH to go where she is.

Thanks for reminding us where legalism leads.
Alan says:

September 15, 2011 at 9:17 pm

Jerry Starling wrote:

Yes, we must be disciples of Jesus. That means learning and following Him. As you said, the Sermon on the Mount is a great place to begin. But what in that sermon has to do with how to “do church”? It has to do with kingdom living as light and salt in the world.

I emphatically agree. It appears that somehow I gave you the impression that I don’t and for that I’m sorry. In fact the point you made is exactly what I’m trying to say. Our churches should be teaching not only that God loves us, but also that he calls us to live a certain way… what you call kingdom living. If we love God we will keep his commands. And yes, many of those commands boil down to loving our neighbors as ourselves (and more specifically what that means for our wives, kids, employers, others in the church, literal neighbors…). Other commands boil down to how to love God. There are commands about what to do and others about what not to do.

I emphatically agree that it’s not all about how to “do church.” I’m pretty sure I didn’t say anything like that. I’m the last person you’ll find making an issue over who passes the communion trays, or over instrumental music, or over a choir or a soloist. Or about taking communion on a day other than Sunday… People who know me would laugh at the very idea that someone thought that about me.

I’m guessing you saw me commenting on obedience and assumed I was talking about such things. There are things we should obey. A large portion of the NT is about how we are to live as Christians — moral teachings, relationships, giving honor and praise to God, submitting to Jesus as Lord. And, yes, about all the wonderful things God has done and is doing and will do on our behalf.

When Jesus speaks of doing His commandments, He is not talking about rituals, procedures, and organizational structure. He is talking about the deepest level of our hearts and souls.
Do not disparage that by saying,

But Matt 7:21 and Luke 6:46 are still in the Bible. So if we’re going to call Jesus Lord, we need to find out what God’s will is, and we need to obey it.

What do you think Matt 7:21 and Luke 6:46 are about if it is not loving one another as Jesus loves us? How can we call Him Lord in the absence of that kind of love?

Again, we are in complete agreement. I didn’t say anything about rituals, procedures, and organizational stuff. That wasn’t even on my mind. If I were you I’d be a bit concerned about having jumped to that conclusion when someone gave a call to obedience. It’s a call that is heard all too seldom these days.
abasnar says:

September 16, 2011 at 12:24 am

@ Wendy

Although this a little off-topic, I’d like to add some more thoughts on this:

Alexander, that the death is spiritual and not physical has nothing to do with science or a secular philosophy but is inherent in the sacred text itself.

Maybe a question first: Do you then mean, that physical death is part of God’s creation?

What is spiritual death? It is separation from God – but were Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel really spiritually dead? Did Cain not die spiritually until he went away from the face of the Lord?

Now, if the earth is old as evolutionists suppose – and no Christian in the past held to such an old-earth-view; but it only became a theological theory after Darwin – the physical death must be a part of God’s good creation. Unless we can separate death from suffering (hard to imagine), we must include suffering also in the plan of creation. Even more so, if we see selection as a means of “evolution”, which can be described as a struggle to survive. Of yourse I don’t know how far you go in this yourself, whether you accept theistic evolution totally or in part or even not at all. One could believe the earth is old and suppose a huge gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 …

So I try to decribe the most consistent view: Theistic evolution with all it includes: Selection, suffering, physical death.

A related thought, although seldom ever connected with this:

What about eternity then? When God says there will be no death anymore, does this relate to spiritual death only? Silly question? Not at all, because many Christians today have a hard time believing in the resurrection of their body – they more or les view their flesh as a prison from which they want be free and envision eternity in a completely non-material way. But there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and we will receive new bodies that are … incorruptible (1Co 15).

OK, so this would not work. This means, the promise for eternity includes that there will be no physical death anymore. But – now reas very carefully – this promise is called the “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21)! What does restoration mean? Restoring everything to its original beauty and uncorrupted state. So, when physical death won’t exist, once sin is done away with completely, then physical death did not exist before sin entered the world.

Do you get my point, Wendy? You are BTW not the first one who told me this view, I came over it mainly from people who believe in theistic evolution – that’s why I made my point from this angle. It could well be, as I said, that you have a completely different belief … But these are my reasons why I don’t believe that Gen 3 speaks about spiritual death only.

Alexander
Jerry Starling says:

September 16, 2011 at 8:03 am

Alan,

Thanks for the clarification. As so often occurs, people are coming at the same point from different directions and are using different terminology with the result that they misunderstand each other. I think you had also misunderstood some of my earlier comments. BICBW.

I am coming from an environment where there are almost no “progressives” and when people talk about obeying, they are talking about rituals and procedures – and who passes the communion trays.

Please excuse my jumping to a conclusion that was not valid.

Brotherly,

Jerry
Alan says:

September 16, 2011 at 8:28 am

Thanks for the clarification. As so often occurs, people are coming at the same point from different directions and are using different terminology with the result that they misunderstand each other. I think you had also misunderstood some of my earlier comments. BICBW.

No problem. This is an imperfect medium. We’re discussing topics that are sometimes sensitive, with people whom we’ve never actually met… with different backgrounds and assumptions. It’s remarkable that we actually do communicate sometimes 😉

And thanks for showing me a new abbreviation, BICBW (with the help of google…)
Scott Shirley says:

September 17, 2011 at 8:21 am

Abasnar said,
“Now, if the earth is old as evolutionists suppose – and no Christian in the past held to such an old-earth-view; but it only became a theological theory after Darwin”

I just wanted to point out that this is a little misleading. While there may not be much evidence that the patristics believed the earth was millions of years old, there are plenty of examples of notable ECF’s that believed the word “day”, as used in Gen1, could mean a period other than 24 hours. Some thought creation was completed in one 24 hour period, some thought each day was literally 1000 years and still others believed it was a vague term difficult to ascribe to a fixed period.

I doubt then, given their propensity to call a Gen1 “day” something other than 24hrs, they would have taken much issue with today’s scientific understanding of an ancient earth.
abasnar says:

September 17, 2011 at 1:11 pm

A very common view of the ECF was: The Millenium will come after 6000 years of history since creation. A bit disturbing for many CoCs is that the ECF were premillennialists, and even a bit more disturbing that the six days of creation for them meant that there will be 6000 years of history and the 7th day (the Sabbath) will be the Millenium of peace and justice. Well, that’s what many of them believed. And I tend to agree with them.

A few examples:

Hipploytus (ca. 205 AD) The Sabath is the type and symbol ofthe future Kingdom of the saints, when they shall reign with Christ after he comes from heaven, as John says in his Revelation. For “a day with the Lord is a thousand years.”

Victorinus (ca 280 AD): The true Sabbath will be the seventh millenium of years, when Christ will reign with His elect.

(The only noteworthy a-millienialst among the ECF was Origen). The analogy they drew from creation’s six days shows clearly that they had a young-earth conviction. Interestingly: Creation was about 4000 years BC … the earth is now about 6000 years old … We’ll see pretty soon, whether they were right with their interpretation 😉

Alexander

Comments are closed.

Inerrancy: Wednesday’s Questions

About Jay F Guin

58 Responses to Inerrancy: Wednesday’s Questions

Subscribe to RSS feeds

Search

Categories

Recent Comments

Top Posts & Pages