tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post2389324666334900935..comments2024-03-28T13:07:51.025-07:00Comments on Winging It: Is Biblical Inerrancy New?Stanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-6877854401799996712011-09-22T18:46:47.046-07:002011-09-22T18:46:47.046-07:00I do the same thing with "Truth" to refe...I do the same thing with "Truth" to reference genuine truth rather than mere perception and "Free Will" when it is made the god of choice as opposed to simple "free will" as the ability to choose.<br /><br />And my contention that, if the contention that the Old Testament is "epic" or "myth" or something other than what it seems, the Holy Spirit has failed to lead His people into the truth hasn't warmed people's heart at all.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-20334223874121407752011-09-22T17:39:42.902-07:002011-09-22T17:39:42.902-07:00Then I guess I should have stuck with my original ...Then I guess I should have stuck with my original question, "Which part is un"Reason"able?" :pDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08443810898475961105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-64386203322471569302011-09-22T17:29:04.994-07:002011-09-22T17:29:04.994-07:00Stan,
Amen, I've been getting sniped at for a...Stan,<br /><br />Amen, I've been getting sniped at for a week now for insisting just that. That it is somehow wrong to turn to the Holy Spirit for guidance, rather than reason.<br /><br />FYI I usually capitalize reason in that context for exactly the reason you gave. The fact that reason is somehow the final arbiter of true and false.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-32894449304327519082011-09-22T15:23:27.359-07:002011-09-22T15:23:27.359-07:00Point taken. The use of "Reason" as oppo...Point taken. The use of "<b>R</b>eason" as opposed to "<b>r</b>eason" (a favorite tool of mine) indicates that in one case Reason is king, god, the decider, and in the other it is a component, a factor, something to include.<br /><br />I love the line from Paul to Timothy: "Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything" (2 Tim 2:7). Yes, we think, we reason, we analyze, we use our minds ... but the final determiner of <i>understanding</i> is the Lord who gives it.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-59546165192895832442011-09-22T14:59:15.128-07:002011-09-22T14:59:15.128-07:00I would suggest placing "Reason" as the ...I would suggest placing "Reason" as the final test of whether scripture is accurate shows a bit of hubris. I would agree that reason is a tool, but it's nothing more. For that matter if it was "lets reason together" instead of "my Reason tells me...", it probably wouldn't be an issue for me. You just mentioned us wanting to put ourselves in God's place, I see this dependence on "Reason" as a symptom of exactly that.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-78147876070886150592011-09-22T06:34:29.573-07:002011-09-22T06:34:29.573-07:00God tells us "Come now, let us reason togethe...God tells us "Come now, let us reason together." We are called to be transformed by "the renewing of your minds". We are, indeed, to have "the mind of Christ". In all of this I would argue that Reason is a key component of biblical understanding. The problem isn't "Reason". The problem is "It doesn't make sense TO ME. Therefore, it is not reasonable." Forgetting the key problem ... the suppression of truth.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-27732063019135189682011-09-22T04:42:26.453-07:002011-09-22T04:42:26.453-07:00David,
Stan is correct. There are those who seem...David,<br /><br />Stan is correct. There are those who seem to elevate Reason to a higher level than it deserves.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-35620634620042644552011-09-21T18:30:21.418-07:002011-09-21T18:30:21.418-07:00Craig can correct me, David, but I think that was ...Craig can correct me, David, but I think that was a tongue-in-cheek statement.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-17000432748942243802011-09-21T17:12:47.712-07:002011-09-21T17:12:47.712-07:00Which part is unreasonable?Which part is unreasonable?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08443810898475961105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-34939527921096837562011-09-21T12:21:16.214-07:002011-09-21T12:21:16.214-07:00So, we must learn from the "mistakes" of...So, we must learn from the "mistakes" of the past, while dismissing everything else as tradition. The fact that some in the church made mistakes and possibly interpreted things poorly, in no way means that you throw everything out.<br /><br />Also, I am not at all concerned that God will command me to kill "innocent" women and children. Perhaps this is due to not having a narrow view of God.<br /><br />David, but it goes against Reason to believe that.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-24177589110115532762011-09-21T02:33:00.428-07:002011-09-21T02:33:00.428-07:00I would have to ask, by who's standard is that...I would have to ask, by who's standard is that a moral, logical, or biblical dilemma? If I hold that the OT is an accurate historical narrative preserved to be true by the work of the Spirit, and that God doesn't command sin, then I must hold that the Israelites killing women and children isn't a sin and that God had a good reason for it. I have to believe that God is the ultimate authority on morality and thus His command to execute women and children must be just. Otherwise I have to try to explain away what the Bible says, or redefine moral and just.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08443810898475961105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-90222751167704548532011-09-20T18:41:45.170-07:002011-09-20T18:41:45.170-07:00I have to say, Dan, that you are simply astounding...I have to say, Dan, that you are simply astounding. The church "failed to strongly oppose slavery" ... although there is no biblical injunction against slavery. The church "failed to oppose sexism" ... although no command of God demands it. And apparently it is a <i>sin</i> to fail to comprehend medicine??? Or is your version of "all truth" every single possible scrap of knowledge? On the other hand, the Bible <i>clearly</i> forbids a man to lay with a man as with a woman, but you're not opposed to that. There are lots of things you disagree with, in fact. But your agreement isn't any better. You believe that God is really concerned about having too much worldly goods, but you haven't done anything to get rid of them yourself. You agree that murder is a sin, but aren't willing to impose such a belief on women killing their unborn babies. Yet you want the church to impose your belief that slavery is a sin on the world? Really astounding.<br /><br />Clearly you <i>have</i> failed to understand. You believe in the sinless when Scripture explicitly denies it. You decry "the killing of babies" when God Himself says, "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" When a baby dies in a tornado or a hurricane, who do you think did it? Well, I suppose it's not the God of the Bible who claims to work <i>all</i> things after the counsel of His will or Christ who claimed "All authority is given to Me." Indeed, while the singularly highest, all-encompassing attribute of God is His holiness, you have a measly God who is required to conform to <i>your</i> sense of right and wrong and certainly doesn't do whatever you consider to be "mean" instead of the God who struck Nadab and Abihu dead for offering strange fire because "By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored."<br /><br />Different sense of morals. Different sense of "sinful". Different sort of God. Yeah, I'm sure you understand <i>your</i> version of Man and of God, but it's not the one I see in the <i>Bible</i>. The one I see in the Bible is entirely consistent.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-82212272416481135752011-09-20T17:44:31.136-07:002011-09-20T17:44:31.136-07:00You don't see a problem with a god that might ...You don't see a problem with a god that might command the killing of babies and children?<br /><br />You see, that's the problem with your interpretation and approach: You just don't see why that's a moral, logical and biblical problem.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-4467984547329667482011-09-20T16:46:51.216-07:002011-09-20T16:46:51.216-07:00Gotta love the presumption that the women and chil...Gotta love the presumption that the women and children and goats and cows and on and on that were commanded by God to be killed were all innocent. Sure, maybe they hadn't done any of the "big" sins, but we're told in the New Testament that no one is innocent, no one is righteous, no one is good. So, from God's point of view all those women and children were traitors to His throne, and even in our society, traitors are executed. The fact that Mankind has survived this long is only based on God's mercy in staying His hand in executing traitorous criminals. But, if you want to think we've got a better understanding of innocent than God, by all means, accuse Him of ordering the deaths of the "innocent", since He pretty clearly ordered it. To me, that's a sign of a lack of conforming to the Word of God, and more of a conforming to the word of Man. Who's word are you gonna believe?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08443810898475961105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-19300980690967379862011-09-20T15:44:41.225-07:002011-09-20T15:44:41.225-07:00"The problem with the interpretation is it le..."<i>The problem with the interpretation is it leaves you with an inconsistent and possibly immoral Bible, god or both. IF you rely upon that interpretation.</i>"<br /><br /><b><i>Or</i></b> you have failed to understand (because, you know, the funny thing is I rely on that interpretation and do not see <i>any</i> of the problems that you do).Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-32263136699187837392011-09-20T12:40:27.800-07:002011-09-20T12:40:27.800-07:00Stan, the church "failed" to strongly op...Stan, the church "failed" to strongly oppose slavery for hundreds and hundreds of years. The church "failed" to oppose sexism for hundreds and hundreds of years. The church "failed" to understand medicine in a modern way for hundreds of years.<br /><br />There is no sin in learning from the mistakes of the past. It would be wrong, I would hope you could agree, to suppose that the church was and is infallible on every point. That would be sort of a blasphemy, wouldn't it? Presuming to make ourselves perfect? Into "gods"?<br /><br />The point remains: The problem with the interpretation is it leaves you with an inconsistent and possibly immoral Bible, god or both. IF you rely upon that interpretation.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-86043326812157884832011-09-20T12:03:42.837-07:002011-09-20T12:03:42.837-07:00"The simple answer is: Because it leaves you ...<i>"The simple answer is: Because it leaves you with a God that might command you to kill babies..."</i><br /><br />No, Dan. It might leave YOU with that kind of god, but it hasn't once led me, or I assume, Stan, Craig and others on this side of this issue to believe any such thing. You have no real basis for such a premise. You simply like to use that to make your weak point.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-73615868940055681442011-09-20T10:44:17.632-07:002011-09-20T10:44:17.632-07:00The assumption, then, is that for all of time the ...The assumption, then, is that for all of time the Jews and the Church had a morally and spiritually irrelevant belief system that was anti-rational and anti-moral. Today, of course, we've managed to figure it out. The only possible conclusion is that all of Judaism and Christianity prior to today failed to see that a historical narrative understanding of the text would be contradictory and inconsistent and contrary to God's nature, but <i>we</i> have solved the problem that they never saw. And, the only possible understanding is that the Holy Spirit FAILED for 2,000 years to get across to the Church what He has <i>finally</i> managed to get across to you. And you see this is a reasonable position to take.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-69188126087837558322011-09-20T10:29:17.762-07:002011-09-20T10:29:17.762-07:00Craig asked...
why not start from the foundation ...Craig asked...<br /><br /><i>why not start from the foundation we already have?</i><br /><br />The simple answer is: Because it leaves you with a God that might command you to kill babies or who knows what else and with a god who might command you to do evil, which leaves you with a contradictory "word of God" and one that is inconsistent with itself (which is it? Is it WRONG to shed innocent blood or is it sometimes OKAY to do so? It can't be both, can it??) and illogical.<br /><br />The result of that is a Christianity that increasingly seems morally and spiritually irrelevant and anti-rationality/anti-morality, which is an astonishing thing.<br /><br />Not striving to be combative, I'm just trying to point out what the problems objectively are with your positions.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-19173982329730618702011-09-20T06:31:00.176-07:002011-09-20T06:31:00.176-07:00I suppose that would sound unkind or condescending...I suppose that would sound unkind or condescending if I took that approach, but you're right. I mean, we don't ask our algebra teachers to prove that 2+2=4 once our earlier math teachers demonstrated it. Modern science isn't advanced by repeating older findings. Yet modern "Christianity" seems to think they have a unique insight.<br /><br />Still, for me it remains ultimately a question of the ability of the Holy Spirit to lead His own into the truth. It took Him 2000 years for this?Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-39187401243176784632011-09-19T18:23:57.942-07:002011-09-19T18:23:57.942-07:00I totally agree on the arrogance part, it just blo...I totally agree on the arrogance part, it just blows my mind when you hear people act like they are the first person who ever thought about this stuff.<br /><br />While, I'm not much on tradition for the sake of tradition, there are just too many really intelligent godly people who have wrestled with these kinds of things for years and why not start from the foundation we already have?Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-22109697227490207692011-09-19T18:08:32.007-07:002011-09-19T18:08:32.007-07:00Yeah, I've heard the same. And, of course, the...Yeah, I've heard the same. And, of course, the right answer is <i>not</i> that it is "just tradition". The right answer is that <i>Jesus <b>promised</b></i> that the <b>Holy Spirit</b> would lead His disciples into all truth. The requirement, then, is that HE FAILED. Well, He didn't fail. It just was too hard for Him to accomplish until this latest generation of believers finally learned to listen to Him. I personally reject that notion of Christ's promise and the abilities of the Holy Spirit. I find the supreme arrogance of "We figured it out when <i>no one else</i> could" and the assault on the power and effectiveness of God's Spirit to be too massive to contemplate. Tradition? Not as much of a deal to me.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-6559216851032378172011-09-19T15:59:28.373-07:002011-09-19T15:59:28.373-07:00Just sayin' I actually got this response when ...Just sayin' I actually got this response when I suggested that thousands of years of Christian and Jewish scholarship affirming the accuracy of the OT was not a at all an acceptable reason to suggest that the OT is accurate.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-13667287524513132962011-09-19T15:57:28.661-07:002011-09-19T15:57:28.661-07:00But Stan, that's all just tradition. You don&...But Stan, that's all just tradition. You don't just blindly accept tradition do you? ;)Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-56200154123201175772011-09-19T06:34:50.750-07:002011-09-19T06:34:50.750-07:00The funny thing to me (of late) is that I've s...The funny thing to me (of late) is that I've so often heard the <i>reverse</i> argument. "Well, if the Church couldn't agree on this doctrine, why do you think we can?" But the things I've been looking at of late are things that <i>all</i> the Church for <i>all</i> time has <i>always</i> agreed upon. I guess the bottom line is that people will believe whatever they choose to believe. And I will still continue to view the Bible as God's inerrant Word, the Holy Spirit as fully capable of leading His own into the truth, and the truth as more real than my often mistaken perceptions of reality.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.com