a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site
But how do we know that? Is it just because it says so? We wouldn't take that kind of logic from a Mormon or about the Koran, would we? That's my point. How do we get away from saying the Bible is trustworthy because the trustworthy Bible says it is trustworthy while still maintaining a doctrine of Sola Scriptura? DanielWell, we can try to find the word "inerrant," or we can simply take God's Word for it. I find it hard to accept that something God-breathed could be antyhing other than inerrant.
Curt Lovelace said:But how do we know that? Is it just because it says so? We wouldn't take that kind of logic from a Mormon or about the Koran, would we? That's my point. How do we get away from saying the Bible is trustworthy because the trustworthy Bible says it is trustworthy while still maintaining a doctrine of Sola Scriptura? DanielWell, we can try to find the word "inerrant," or we can simply take God's Word for it. I find it hard to accept that something God-breathed could be antyhing other than inerrant.
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
Like it, Scott! I've noticed a couple of times around here that people have seemed to pit 'dependency on the Spirit' (or something like that) against mind / reason / education / scholarship.
I don't see that myself - scripture warns us not to place ALL our trust in reasoning, or 'vain philosophy' etc. but it does not tell us not to use it at all. For certain, if postmodernity has taught us anything it's that reason has limitations, but that's not a cause for throwing it out. I agree with Pope Ratzinger who said that we need to enter a new age where faith and reason are brought together as they have not been before. The two do not contradict one another, but work together. Anselm's take on theology as 'faith seeking understanding' was a good one in my view, and fosters a good kind of intellectual humility.
Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent.
ScottL said:I am starting to lean more and more towards the understanding that most evangelical's view or the 'inerrancy' of Scripture is a bit too static and hard-nosed (suitable for a KJV only arguer or Muslim reader of the Koran). Too many times we try and read our 21st century understanding of testimonial accuracy and what it means to be without error and think the Biblical writers have to fit into that mold. And these overly stuffy characteristics are usually only ascribed to the original autographs/writings that we will probably never have.
I love the Bible - I read it, study it, teach it, preach it, spill coffee on it, etc. But I don't have Moses' or Paul's hand-written scrolls, and most are not called to/interested in getting into the Masoretic text or Septuagint. But I see these things in helping me grasp God's heart and truth: 1) I pick up my ESV or NLT to read and study it. 2) I have the third-person of the Trinity living in me to help me; I am convinced the Spirit makes the 'Word of God' come alive and real in my life
3) My life is submitted to other Christians so I don't go off on some cultic tangent.
4) I read other theologians/scholars/patriarchs to sharpen my mind and my theology, as well as helping see if I might have gone off on some unhealthy tangent (holding to a version of 'tradition', but not fully lining up with the RC understanding)
5) I realize I don't know it all, nor will ever know it all.
Just some thoughts.
Can one be a "fundamentalist" and *not* believe in total inerrancy? In other words, is it a fundamentalist position that my favorite translation is totally perfect in every way? If it *is* a fundamentalist position, does that make those that question it "liberal" in their theology?