Coulter on Trump's future

[Stephen Fox]

shape their thoughts on Trump and Cruz; and Pressler and Patterson's enthusiasm for them

http://ethicsdaily.com/theological-trad ... -cms-23177

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

You're getting into semantics, Keith. The term "inerrant" wouldn't have been used at the time the WC was written, but the concepts are quite clear. The author believed that God was the author of scripture, and that it was the word of God. How can God produce error? This is the kind of dancing around the facts that American and European liberal Protestants do with this very issue. It is why, when it was pointed out to Southern Baptists, that a movement was capable of being sustained to change the leadership in order to re-affirm commitment to this historic Baptist, and Protestant Christian teaching. The confessions declare the sixty six books of the Bible to be the written word of God, and the terminology that is used clearly indicates that those who wrote the confessions believed the Bible to be error free. It is also clearly stated that they believe in its complete spiritual authority, defined as infallibility. You can change the meanings of words and say that direct statements don't really mean what they plainly state, but you can't change the fact that Christians have believed the Bible to be without error, God breathed, the word of God, the written word of God and any of a hundred other adjectives that have been used to get that point across. Doctrine is built on that premise. Zwingli and Calvin both say much the same thing about the scriptures, and their followers have a long history of teaching and declaring it. It is a historic doctrine of Christian teaching, and to try to change the meanings of the words that the reform theologians used to describe it is liberal theological gas.

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Both Calvin and Zwingli, and Luther for that matter, based their foundational beliefs on the Bible, and handled it as if it were completely authoritative, even stating so. Their trust in its accuracy and truthfulness was so complete, that stating the obvious isn't necessary to prove the point. I don't see anywhere that any of them says, "But you can only trust us insofar as the Bible is truthful. If it's not, well, then we're off base."

To each his own. Using the term heretic is doing the same thing that you accuse "fundamentalists" of doing. Timothy, try this sometime. From your pulpit, declare that you believe there are mistakes and errors in the Bible, and that if there is anyone in your congregation who doesn't believe that, they are a heretic, and see what happens.

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

Another logic inerrantists seem to embrace at all costs is that a source of information must be absolutely perfect else it cannot be of any authority. A moments thought should dispel that. Our parents were not perfect but yet they served as an authority for us. A book of physics has never been perfect yet we learn from it. Certainty is in the end elusive.

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

One of the major problems with inerrancy is that it fails to recognize that the Bible is written in human languages. There is no such thing as a perfect interpretation of human language which, by its nature, is at times ambiguous and not readily translated from one language to another.

Human language is the imperfect foundation on which the Bible is written. How do you get an inerrant product from an imperfect foundation?

And of course this all begs the question as to why inerrantists believe inerrancy is necessary in the first place.

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]