Biblical inerrancy is irrelevant

[iancurtis51880]

You know, maybe I'm missing something, but I think most of you are arguing against something that nobody is arguing for. I think this is because it stems from phlegm's use of the words "historical Jesus", and the connotations that particular phrasing has. I could be wrong, but I don't think that when he says that Biblical inerrancy is irrelevant, and that his relationship is with the "historical" Jesus, that he is setting up a confrontation or contrast between the Bible and "extra-Biblical sources", then siding with the "extra-Biblical sources" that tell us what Jesus is really like.

I think his point is merely that when we say that we have a relationship with Jesus, we have a relationship with the ACTUAL Jesus who lived and walked and breathed, not with a character which we know from the Bible. I think that this is something that should be relatively uncontroversial, actually, when you think about it. The people who became followers of Jesus in the days and months that followed his resurrection, for instance, didn't have to believe anything in particular about what is laid out in the Gospel accounts to become Christians. So it stands to reason that a particular belief about what is laid out in the Gospels is not a prerequisite to becoming a Christian, but rather a belief in the person of Jesus, the "historical" person, if you like. Another example is that of Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament. I'm not sure whether which of the Gospel accounts he was aware of, if he was aware of any of them, but it seems like he, too, didn't need to believe anything in particular about those accounts, either.

The upshot of all of this to me (and I think phlegm, although we don't see eye to eye on all of this) is that an particular belief about the "inerrancy" of Scripture is not necessary to become a Christian. I personally believe that the Bible does not contradict itself, and where we see contradictions, it is the fault of human understanding, not of God or of Scripture (which is, I think, the right position, and the one that many people here seem to hold).

My original beef is with phlegm's assertion that Biblical inerrancy is irrelevant. I vehemently disagree about that. It is absolutely and totally relevant. I know I have gotten off-topic and digressed at times, but that's my issue and I've more than explained why. There is no other way to know who Jesus was and about Him other than through the Bible. Any other way is false, as far as I'm concerned. The scripture that states that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God pretty well backs that up.

[Fred]

I sort of wonder if you even bothered to read what I said.

[phlegm]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that when he says that Biblical inerrancy is irrelevant, and that his relationship is with the "historical" Jesus, that he is setting up a confrontation or contrast between the Bible and "extra-Biblical sources", then siding with the "extra-Biblical sources" that tell us what Jesus is really like.

To be more clear, what I understand by "biblical Jesus" is essentially "historical Jesus" combined with "theological Jesus", that is, accounts of the actual person of Jesus combined with what The Church says Jesus means. Isn't this exactly what the New Testament is: accounts of the person of Jesus and arguments for why early Christians believed he is the fulfillment of the OT prophecies.

As Fred suspects, I am not saying that I necessarily side with "extra-Biblical sources". All of what we know about historical Jesus that is essential to Christian faith is contained in the Bible.

My original beef is with phlegm's assertion that Biblical inerrancy is irrelevant.

Maybe I can approach this a different way. I was thinking about what I mean when I say I "affirm" Scripture. I don't think it says much other than that I hold Scripture in high regard. It doesn't say anything about what I think any particular verse means. If I simply affirm "Scripture is God-breathed" and cannot say anything about how it relates to my life or theology, then I haven't said anything of relevance.

That is what the first post in this thread is getting at. If I affirm a doctrine of biblical inerrancy, I really haven't said anything about what I think the true meaning of the Bible is. I haven't communicated a true meaning of the Gospel. I haven't said anything about what is relevant: who Jesus was and what he means. I believe that's why Mr. McKnight said in the interview something to the effect that discovering the true meaning is what matters.

[tkrantilles]

I'm saddened by what's taking place here. We can define biblical terms like "God-breathed" without looking into them. We can suggest that God is the author of Reality, which means that we can place as great a trust in the studies of a cursed, fallen world, or the words of flawed and sinful individuals, or our own intuition, as the living and active and perfect Word of God. We can further speak of the Bible's account of Jesus Christ as nothing more than the story of a character when in reality, it is the inspired truth about Christ, God incarnate. Christ is revealed in God's inerrant Word. We can even say that since humans are involved with the Bible, they instantly overpower God's omnipotence and the result is a flawed document. If any of these are true, why even bother with the Bible?
Phlegm, I'm going to be as straightforward as I can, not as part of a debate, not as one who is upset by an argument, but rather as one who has been thinking about this all afternoon. I am deathly afraid, to be totally honest, that you're not saved. This isn't something I say quickly or lightly. I've seen nothing but resistance to even the most basic and necessary facets of Christian faith, from God's holiness to God's sovereignty, to the importance of His Word, to absolute truth, even. I can't comment on other issues because we've not discussed them. But from what we have discussed, I don't see the reverence toward God that I've noticed from my fellow believers (of all different doctrinal stances). I don't see the reliance upon Him. What I do see is a reliance upon self and upon this world. I'm trying to be level with you here - this scares me, and I don't say this because I enjoy it.
I urge you to lay aside everything you're clinging to; lay aside your opinions and your culture and the entire world, and to see yourself as God sees you - as a sinful being that has squandered the gifts he's been given and continues to receive. Focus upon your spiritual poverty before a thrice-holy God. See your just end, no different from any of humanity's, as eternal Hell. See God's promise of redemption to the eternal life of God through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus for our sins and of newness of life through the work of Christ and the Spirit. I'm happy to talk to you about this if you like; I'd love to, actually. This is where it has to start, though.

[Fred]

I give up.

[phlegm]

We can define biblical terms like "God-breathed" without looking into them.

Excuse me for not being a Bible Scholar who can speak authoritatively on command about every nuance in the Bible. I only offered my present provisional understanding of "God-breathed". Perhaps someday I will further develop it. The Gospel is for everyone, no matter how (un)developed their understanding of the Bible is.

We can suggest that God is the author of Reality, which means that we can place as great a trust in the studies of a cursed, fallen world, or the words of flawed and sinful individuals, or our own intuition, as the living and active and perfect Word of God.

Does not the Bible exist within this fallen Reality?

We can further speak of the Bible's account of Jesus Christ as nothing more than the story of a character

That is the opposite of what I have been saying. By downplaying the actual living, breathing Jesus of historical reality, you are making Jesus into a mere caricature disjoint from Reality. I want no part of a Jesus disconnected from history.

Christ is revealed in God's inerrant Word

Jesus was also revealed within our fallen history.

We can even say that since humans are involved with the Bible, they instantly overpower God's omnipotence and the result is a flawed document.

I never said the Bible is errant or that human influence twisted the biblical message. I've repeatedly spoken of the trustworthiness and authority of the Bible. Acknowledging the human touch on the Bible does not necessarily imply that the biblical message is damaged. Nor does questioning the Bible's meaning necessarily imply that the the Bible is not authoritative.

See God's promise of redemption to the eternal life of God through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus for our sins and of newness of life through the work of Christ and the Spirit.

Have you not read what I've been saying about who Jesus was in history?

I affirmed the resurrection as historically real, implying an actual connection between Jesus and God. I mentioned repeatedly the way Jesus lived toward the Kingdom of God as our model for new life, that we should live transformed lives toward God's love, peace, and righteousness. And when we live out, in faith, transformed lives, we participate in God's redeeming work toward God's coming Kingdom.

[iancurtis51880]

I sort of wonder if you even bothered to read what I said.

Yes, and I gave an appropriate answer.

[Gildas]

Phlegm, I'm going to be as straightforward as I can, not as part of a debate, not as one who is upset by an argument, but rather as one who has been thinking about this all afternoon. I am deathly afraid, to be totally honest, that you're not saved.

This is is not your place to decide tkrantilles, this shows spiritual arrogance on your part as far as I am concerned. You do not have the final say on the eternal life of anyone.... much less Phlegm.

[Fred]

I sort of wonder if you even bothered to read what I said.

Yes, and I gave an appropriate answer.

You did? In light of how I have defined "the historical Jesus", then, I would ask you to explain why you hold the Bible to be more important than the person of Jesus. I would also ask you to explain how it is that, if the only valid way of knowing anything about Jesus is through the Bible, how it is that people became Christians before the Gospels were written. You may have a valid answer to these questions, but I haven't read them. I don't say this in an antagonistic way, I honestly want to understand your position, which I've never seen anyone take before.

[SolaDeoGloria]

Phlegm, I'm going to be as straightforward as I can, not as part of a debate, not as one who is upset by an argument, but rather as one who has been thinking about this all afternoon. I am deathly afraid, to be totally honest, that you're not saved.

I think that something like this should be sent as a PM rather than posted on a public forum. To be honest, however, I don't know that it really helps at all. Honestly, I find a lot of things that Phelgm says to be quite troubling, and I wholly agree that abandoning the complete authority of Scripture leads to subjective religion. But I've been in a decent number of online theological discussions (mostly on Facebook) and have debated/discussed with many different types of people including those who believed how I did, those who deviated from my belief but were still within the realm of orthodoxy, Roman Catholics, and those who took or more liberal understanding of Scripture. Did the thought ever enter my mind that seem of these people might not be saved judging from their poor understanding of the Gospel and the attitude that they expressed. Yes, actually, in many cases, to a significantly greater degree than anything in what phlegm has said so far. But I've noticed that any time somebody in an online discussion said anything that appeared condescending like, "I don't think your saved," "I'm praying for you that you understand the true gospel," "Please abandon your own understandings and surrender to God," etc., nothing noticeably productive ever came out of it.

[phlegm]

I think I could get behind the following definition of inerrant from the Chicago Statement:

...inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

source

A key distinction for me is that "entirely true" is a provisional and contextual type of true, not True in a "I personally hold the absolute truth" sort of way. And referring to the Bible as a "human production" seems to imply that.

Yet, that definition is starkly different from the definition tkrantilles offered, and that is a main challenge to the relevance of inerrancy. If people hold wildly divergent ideas about what inerrancy means, then what does it even mean?

Whereas, I think most people have a similar idea about what trustworthy means. And, to take a step in the practical direction, anyone can easily understand what "the Bible is trustworthy" means. I'm not about to give a long explanation about the finer points of inerrancy when sharing the Gospel.

[Gildas]

This will most likely complicate things but here's a wikipedia link to The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy



I haven't read the whole thing...but you may find this interesting.

[iancurtis51880]

I sort of wonder if you even bothered to read what I said.

Yes, and I gave an appropriate answer.

You did? In light of how I have defined "the historical Jesus", then, I would ask you to explain why you hold the Bible to be more important than the person of Jesus. I would also ask you to explain how it is that, if the only valid way of knowing anything about Jesus is through the Bible, how it is that people became Christians before the Gospels were written. You may have a valid answer to these questions, but I haven't read them. I don't say this in an antagonistic way, I honestly want to understand your position, which I've never seen anyone take before.

I hold the Bible to be more important than the person of Jesus because His teachings are are contained in the Bible. How could there be ANYTHING more important to a believer than Jesus' teachings and precepts that we're to follow? I don't get it-how have I in any way avoided or been unclear in my posts. Either I'm not speaking our common language or my responses are not being read/comprehended. There is no way I could've been clearer about my feelings regarding Phlegm's position that Biblical inerrancy is irrelevant. How very odd.

[phlegm]

How could there be ANYTHING more important to a believer than Jesus' teachings and precepts that we're to follow?

Nicomachean Ethics is a book with Aristotle's teachings about how to act toward the common good. It was written even before Jesus. Why should we follow Jesus' teachings over Aristotle's?

[iancurtis51880]

How could there be ANYTHING more important to a believer than Jesus' teachings and precepts that we're to follow?

Nicomachean Ethics is a book with Aristotle's teachings about how to act toward the common good. It was written even before Jesus. Why should we follow Jesus' teachings over Aristotle's?

I am done doing what started out as debating and what has now just ended up as inanely arguing silly points. I have given my position about this and my reasons for it. It was a satisfactory answer-just not satisfactory for everyone. For me, case closed.

[Gildas]

I'm with Ian this is getting to be silly...

[phlegm]

I don't think the answer is inane or silly; the answer is the reason for my hope in Jesus. We follow Jesus' teachings over Aristotle's because, unlike Aristotle, Jesus is directly related with God. And we believe that because of the real historical life that Jesus lived toward the Kingdom of God and because of the resurrection.

[Gildas]

Phlegm you should have just said that in your prior post....now it doesn't sound so silly...I look at it this way and have for years...anyone can be ethical and follow a moral code but without Jesus it means nothing. To be honest this whole posting session has been good for me... It forces me to do a gut check...I am compelled to ask the question of what do I believe? For what it's worth to...I appreciate that tkantrilles, Ian and Fred have also contributed to the discussion.

[Dr. M]

I'm saddened by what's taking place here. We can define biblical terms like "God-breathed" without looking into them. We can suggest that God is the author of Reality, which means that we can place as great a trust in the studies of a cursed, fallen world, or the words of flawed and sinful individuals, or our own intuition, as the living and active and perfect Word of God. We can further speak of the Bible's account of Jesus Christ as nothing more than the story of a character when in reality, it is the inspired truth about Christ, God incarnate. Christ is revealed in God's inerrant Word. We can even say that since humans are involved with the Bible, they instantly overpower God's omnipotence and the result is a flawed document. If any of these are true, why even bother with the Bible?
Phlegm, I'm going to be as straightforward as I can, not as part of a debate, not as one who is upset by an argument, but rather as one who has been thinking about this all afternoon. I am deathly afraid, to be totally honest, that you're not saved. This isn't something I say quickly or lightly. I've seen nothing but resistance to even the most basic and necessary facets of Christian faith, from God's holiness to God's sovereignty, to the importance of His Word, to absolute truth, even. I can't comment on other issues because we've not discussed them. But from what we have discussed, I don't see the reverence toward God that I've noticed from my fellow believers (of all different doctrinal stances). I don't see the reliance upon Him. What I do see is a reliance upon self and upon this world. I'm trying to be level with you here - this scares me, and I don't say this because I enjoy it.
I urge you to lay aside everything you're clinging to; lay aside your opinions and your culture and the entire world, and to see yourself as God sees you - as a sinful being that has squandered the gifts he's been given and continues to receive. Focus upon your spiritual poverty before a thrice-holy God. See your just end, no different from any of humanity's, as eternal Hell. See God's promise of redemption to the eternal life of God through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus for our sins and of newness of life through the work of Christ and the Spirit. I'm happy to talk to you about this if you like; I'd love to, actually. This is where it has to start, though.

I'm really surprised phlegm chose to continue posting in this thread after a diatribe like this. I mean, this is just about the most offensive thing anyone's posted in this forum. So offensive, in fact... Nikmis, is this one of your alternate accounts?

Ah, you know what, I bet it is. Darn it, just when I was beginning to think we finally had a genuine whack job on our hands. Curse you!

[phlegm]

Phlegm you should have just said that in your prior post.

I guess so, except that I like to encourage people to think for themselves. I generally find ideas more meaningful when I've personally thought through them than if someone just spoon feeds them to me.