Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Another David, more errancy
One of David Bryan's readers, David W, made some more comments in support of biblical errancy. I guess it's not only the Roman church that has problems with encroaching liberalism.
this nothing injures the truth of what they have said.
Except this: They got stuff WRONG. And it becomes simply a question of fideistic special pleading to say, "Well, they got some things over there wrong, but on the stuff that's really important to me, they totally got it right!"
AKA reshaping God's Word in your own image. Usually mainline American evangellyfish like to rewrite it to write out the things that make them uncomfy, so they can believe in their Word of Faith confess it and possess it type stuff. But you're doing the same thing toward a different end.
that God became man
Maybe. Unless that part was errant.
that He wrought miracles
Unless those parts were mistaken. Don't forget, a lot of the miracle accts don't match!
that He was crucified
Or maybe He wasn't, maybe they got that part wrong. After all, only one of the Gospels mentions Simon of Cyrene. The accts of the thieves on the crosses differ. etc.
I think that Scripture itself also argues against inerrancy.
But maybe those parts are errant, so your case is self-refuting.
You do realise there were multiple copies and lines of transmission of the Scr, don't you?
Or is this another case of special pleading - you're just SURE that THIS passage is inerrant. Somehow.
It's like one of the elders of my church says: It's inspired in spots, and you have to be inspired to spot the spots.
Context, my friend. Context.
22 “For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 “But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.
1 Corinthians 7:10-14 makes very clear that he is stating his own opinion
Paul usually referred to Jesus Christ as "Lord". He was saying he had no clear command from Jesus' own mouth. But that's not the only way God inspires Scr.
He goes on to say:
25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.
Further, once again we have to check the context. This is a letter from Paul. Not everything in the letter is straight command. It's what he said. If he intended to command, OK, it's a command. If he intended to dispense advice but not enjoin the advice with a "you MUST do this", then it's advice. This is the latter. We can tell by reading it with a heart and mind disposed to understand it, not to prove a point that is totally foreign to it.
Finally, how do you know he really said what you think he said? Maybe that part was errant.
2 Tim 3:16...is here referring to what we call the Old Testament
Which you just called out as errant in your comments on Jeremiah.
One thing we're seeing clearly, that humans, devoid of the Spirit, can be VERY errant.
Comparing the Islamic ideas regarding the Koran (that it is entirely inerrant and has existed in heaven with God since before Creation) is a little unsettling.
The Islamic doctrine of the Qur'an is better matched to the Christian doctrine of the Logos, Christ, just FYI.
David Bryan said,
I fail to see how, but I do not possess all knowledge, obviously.
You seem to be vacillating when it suits you - you were just SURE that the Cross inscription accts were irreconcilably inconsistent, I pointed out you don't have all knowledge, Seth explained it, and you didn't say "I do not possess all knowledge, obviously" or anything like that. Why the change now?
The question then becomes, is one of the gospels in error because it isn't laid out in the order I want it to be laid out?
EXCELLENT question, and one that David Bryan and his errantists comrades need to, and (according to what I've seen, fail to) grapple with.