6 Things I Wish Christians Would Admit About the Bible

[KeithE]

After reading some of the comments to this article I feel compelled to add a sixth “thing” to be clear - The Bible is Demonstrably Errant and Fallible
And the only way to claim otherwise would throw out all natural extraction of meaning (iow “interpretation”) for living today (via strange scripture twisting to preserve those holy grails - inerrancy or infallibility) thus "throwing out the baby with the bathwater”. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the biblical authors to write, can and will provide the discernment to lead one into the deeper truths useful for today (prayerful attitudes required).

[William Thornton]

I have no problem in saying these things. I'll not join you in your addendum to his list:

The Bible is Demonstrably Errant and Fallible...And the only way to claim otherwise would throw out all natural extraction of meaning (iow “interpretation”) for living today (via strange scripture twisting to preserve those holy grails - inerrancy or infallibility) thus "throwing out the baby with the bathwater”. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the biblical authors to write, can and will provide the discernment to lead one into the deeper truths useful for today (prayerful attitudes required).

You might start by eliminating your own absolutes, your own meanings, your own view of what is normal and natural; toss out the snarl words and phrases whose use is merely decorative and diagnostic relative to the writer. Your last sentence is completely subjective, unverifiable, ungraphable, and unquantifiable; however, I commend you for venturing, albeit errantly, beyond your lockstep, number-crunching, data-driven training and background as an engineer.

Hope you had a very nice Christmas...seriously.

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

Okay, I locked the other thread. Any objections to moving the content of William's and Timothy's replies there into their initial replies here and then deleting the now-locked, then-superfluous thread?

[Haruo]

[William Thornton]

William wrote: I have no problem saying these five things about the Bible and don't know any SBC cons who would not say these things.

Timothy Bonney wrote: But what about number 3 William? I know at least some conservative Baptists who hold to the dictation theory of inspiration.


Wm. wrote: You guys can be counted on ignore wide differences in what you call "conservative Baptists." I have never known of a Southern Baptist who holds to the dictation theory of inspiration. I know of no SBC prof who holds this. I know no SBC pastor who holds thid...no trustee...no missionary...no denominational worker...

[KeithE]

I’m OK with deleting the other thread. I may have been the source of that trouble since I was interrupted a great deal as I wrote this morning.

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

William, southern Illinois and Indiana seemed to me to be hot beds of SBC conservatism. I know some of the most conservatie ABC churches I've ever walked into were in southern Indiana.

I'm not saying there are lots of those folks around but I'm really surprised you've not met any. The dictation theory was in the bylaws of the SBC church I pastored in southern Illinois. One ABC church I pastored in Indiana had "plenary verbal" in its confession of faith until a committee rewrote it.

I guess I just have all the (bad) luck with Baptists.

[William Thornton]

[William Thornton]

[Stephen Fox]

I was there on the floor off stage where the Saints would run on the field with Bill Leonard himself watching the "surreal" (Leonards word) with the Inerrancy pageant after Pressler and Patterson and Jesse Helms people had celebrated at the café du monde

It was a clear victory for the Birch Society.

It was 1990 in New Orleans, no 88

Amyway there was a pagean in the Superdome codifying the Dictation theory as God would speak and an Old Testament writer would write it down straight from the SBC Netherworld itself.

Saw it with my own eyes.

I continue to believe Thornton is a good man. I'm not calling him a liar, but it continues to baffle me how folks like Thornton who otherwise show they have their wits about them are so confused on what it was,what the shibboleth was that took over the SBC. It was young eart, ten thousand year old 1stm11 chapters of Genesis as SCIENCE and Jack and Crapps and Smith and the People of the Covenant and Ralph Elliot were infidel liberals cause Criswell said so.

That was the platform that took over the SBC and you can't change it now just cause you wish it didn't happen that way

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

I'll join William in saying I never encountered an SBC pastor, or professor, who taught or preached verbal dictation. Likewise, I never heard anything about "literal" interpretation not requiring both a historical and cultural context. Of course, in a denomination of independent, autonomous churches, anything is possible in calling a pastor, but such attributions are rare. I know few Southern Baptists who wouldn't be able to agree with most of the article.

[Stephen Fox]

I know some on this board have warned me never to utter the name Molly Worthen on this board again. But I do want to say to my friend Keith E active on this board and an influential of one of the leading CBF churches in Alabama, his time would be much better spent engaging Molly Worthen on inerrancy rather than this fairly insignificant guru in North Carolina.

To date I think Sandy and I are the only participants on this board who have read Apostles of Reason and I'm not sure Sandy read all of it.

[Dave Roberts]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

In regard to harm, I was not maing a personal reference but more general, views of inspiration and results therefrom have harmed others. It is difficult for me to see how any sense of orthodoxy survives over time with a liberal view of inspiraion.

There are certain trigger words in these discussions and your use of "cling" is a regular, as if there is some irrational, emotional factor that prevails. I am as informed as any here on the various viewa, though a deep discussion holds little attraction to me.

In regard to the Levitical laws, it is not inconsistent to make a distintion between laws for Israel and for New Covenant believers. All commentators attempt some categorization of moral and ceremonial laws. Passages on coverings are handled interpretively in a few routine ways. That you raise these signals to me that you would prefer a discussion of inerrancy from your view of what a good inerrantist should believe rather than from where most inerrantists are.

I know a few SBCers who practice covering, but not any SBC church that insists on it. I suspect that there nay be some Messianic congregations affiliated with the SBC that do this.

Like I said, I agree with the five things above.

[Haruo]

[Stephen Fox]

This ongoing conversation on this board would be greatly informed and advanced if those who participate would read her book published back in March. It is a definitive work and it seems to me senseless to continue to have these conversations without making use of her investigations and insight.

I'm no better,well not much better than the rest of you, but at least I have read her book.

William's fear of a lack of orthodoxy without inerrancy interests me. His convept is one I have considered. But the misuse of inerrancy in the fundamentalist takeover in the SBC was insidious, deceitful and of the devil, especially the way the leadership--all the presidents since the takeover with a little rope given to Jim Henry--executed it on the unsuspecting and the folks in the pew; the Criswellite demagogic campaign.

Rus Moore and company are takingthe SBC now about where the old leadership woulda ended up. Read the tea leaves. They are no less susceptible to societal trends than they accused the old leadership of being.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
Matthew 5:17 in the rendering of the New Living Translation, which strives for clarity of translation.

That makes looking at the Levitical law, and indeed the entire Old Testament, in the context of Jesus' fulfillment of it. That also puts in context his statement in verse 18, "until everything is accomplished." I believe that's a direct reference to his statement on the cross, "It is finished." That's the difference between interpreting the Old Testament literally (i.e. actually being required to stone "disobedient" sons) or as that for which the penalty has been paid by Jesus, i.e. the precept or morality that is illustrated by the law.

This is probably another one of those places where there is a clear, sharp difference between fundamentalist Baptists, and most Southern Baptists.