Who is following the dustup between Olsen and John Pierce

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy,

The first place I see the term "truth without mixture of error" is in the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. That is a Baptist statement that has no bearing on what non-Baptists have ever thought about the Bible. If I'd not grown up Baptist I'd have never heard of it. Earlier Baptist confessions didn't have such a statement.

I also noticed that you quoted theologians rather than confessions or creeds. As much as I like Luther and Augustine, no matter what they said, their authority does not rise above the authority of the Bible or the ecumenical creeds. And it does not rise above the creeds their own Church's adopted after them.

Now, as to what they said. You quote from Augustine (pulled out of context of his theology) totally fails to note that Augustine does not use the scripture in a literal way. Augustine was one of the great proponents of allegorizing the Bible and NOT taking it literally. No matter what he says about false statements, allegorizing the Bible is not the same thing at all as taking the Bible to be inerrant. Some of Augustine's writings about symbolism in the Old Testament are so far afield of being literal readings as to be near fanciful. No one would take Augustine to be a literal interpreter of scripture.

Luther says that God speaks to us in scripture. And Luther says that the Bible is the Word of God. But how can Luther be an inerrantist when he also believed we should actually toss out one of the books of the Bible that he didn't like? James wouldn't be in the Bible if Luther had his way. So if he is an inerrantist, he can only be relied on as a selective inerrantist since he doesn't believe James to be inerrant or he'd not want it tossed out. I'd say that doesn't fit the theory of an inerrant Bible.

But even at that, look through Lutheran documents and their confessions and creeds. While Luther himself made this statement, it doesn't appear to me to have made way into the Lutheran's historic creeds. I've done some hunting through the small and large catechisms, Book of Concord, and re-read the Creed of Athanasia. None of those would give me any indication that the Reformation churches believed in Biblical inerrancy.

What it amounts to is that the full consensus of a Church (denomination) is often less radical than the views of an individual, even their founder. I don't see evidence that the Lutheran creeds argue for inerrancy.

The way you treat inerrancy Sandy feels like the way some Baptists try to use the "Trail of Blood Theory" to argue that Baptists existed since the New Testament. Its a cute idea. But has no historical basis.

[Tim Bonney]

While you are at it, note that while Lutherans and Baptists and some others may believe in "solo scriptura" the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, the Episcopal Church and the Methodist denominations believe generally in "Prima Scriptura." That is the scripture as the primary source of doctrine and not the sole source. Again, does any of that sound like inerrancy?

So while your theorizing about what Catholics and other non-Baptist believe about Biblical inspiration you are missing the difference in how all those denominations use scripture. They don't use it as if it is inerrant. If they did, they'd believe in solo scriptura wouldn't they?

[Sandy]

There's a big difference between a literal interpretation of scripture, and a belief that it is without error, or inerrant. That is one of the distinguishing points between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals. Granted, some conservatives venture into literal interpretations on some points, particularly those who are fascinated with end-times scenarios, but by and large, there are differences.

Creeds have their origin in human wisdom and confession. They are not comprehensive statements of doctrine, or personal belief. They can become as meaningless as their constant repetition in worship. What is clear, from the early church fathers up to the Reformation and beyond is that Christian theology accorded a status of inspiration to the scripture that defines it as the written word of God, and elevated it in principle and authority over church tradition and works of human origin, and distinguished it as revelation from God with miraculous qualities, including perfection not found in any work of human origin, and the belief that the Holy Spirit protected and preserved both the authorship, and the transmission, of this written word of God. It's not a new concept.

Interesting that Pierce cites a scripture passage to make his point. If he doesn't believe that the scripture is without error, then his citation is worthless, and his point is just hot air.

[Dave Roberts]

Sandy, I love your logical fallacies, especially that if you don't believe in the doctrine of inerrancy, your citations of scripture are specious. Analyze your premises and see where that leaves you.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

By the way, I saw you take a slap at the practice of repeating creeds and faith statements in church. Yes I get it, as a person of Baptist background you don't like creeds.

But if I ask a Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran etc. what are the basic teachings of Christianity as laid out by the Apostles I will get an almost instant "I believe in God the father almighty creator of heaven and earth....."

If I ask the average person who doesn't know the creed by memory I may get a description of basic Christian beliefs. Many of them may get left out or not. I think there is a value of having in your head a basic list of what amounts to most of the basics of Christianity even though my denomination doesn't consider the Apostles' creed to be one of our doctrinal standards.

[Haruo]

[Tim Bonney]

[Stephen Fox]

Most of you have said the very same things about inerrancy hundreds of times on this board.

Pierce was pointing to Ted Cruz and Frank Graham's versions of political, Tea Party fundamentalism and most of you with Olsen got distracted.

And not many of you other than Sandy have read Molly Worthen's excellent Apostles of Reason.

Here is the latest on her

http://humanities.unc.edu/programs/adve ... istianity/

Woul be nice if somebody would pick up the dust up of Ted Cruz Wife and how she is calling for the Elect of 2nd Baptist Houston to show the country the David Barton view of the founding fathers

[Sandy]

Well, we got distracted on the religious side of what constitutes "Evangelical." Fact is, there are a lot of Christians who believe in inerrancy, and in an active sort of evangelistic faith, who are not necessarily political conservatives of the tea party variety. If you're really serious about the influence of faith as an American, in the cultural, social, political, and religious life of this country, then it has to go a lot deeper than just opposition to abortion and same sex marriage. And while I believe that the scripture does affirm life beginning at conception, and I don't see an affirmation of same sex marriages, there are a whole lot of other things that must be considered, which the political right ignores, or re-interprets, or just leaves out because it doesn't fit the agenda. If Biblical values were really all that important to the political evangelical right, the tea partiers and extremist conservatives, Donald Trump would be a pariah, not a frontrunner. And I think there are a lot of sincere Christian Evangelicals who don't get caught up in conservative politics. Hence, you have Ted Cruz, who would also be a pariah, thinking that 15 million just stayed home during the last election. They didn't. Most of them were Latinos and African Americans, and some whites, who voted for Obama, while others, in good conscience, chose an independent, non-aligned candidate. Believing in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible doesn't translate into an automatic republican voter.

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

[Dave Roberts]

This seems to fit into many of our discussions about politics and theology. It puts a full college logic course in 10 commandments.

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... na/462774/

[Tim Bonney]

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.goupstate.com/article/201602 ... ?p=2&tc=pg