Crawford Toy a "heretic" not a hero - Mohler

[Bruce Gourley]

Mormons and other nontrinitarians are classified as Christians, also. Toy's journey cannot be dismissed easily by saying he remain a Christian. God alone knows but his joining the Unitarian church is something that makes him problematic for modern mods.

Who is a hero is certainly subjective.

From their founding in the 1820s until sometime in the 1990s, Mormons, a polytheistic faith, insisted they were not Christians. Now they publicly claim they are Christians, while at the same time affirming Joseph's Smith's contention they are not Christians. Last time I checked, polytheistic faiths have never seriously been considered as Christians.

As to Toy, you've already started down the same road that led him to eventually be labeled as a heretic by some. Better watch your back ... and your friends.

[Bruce Gourley]

Bruce, it is curious that you assert the theory of Biblical inerrancy found its birth in the 19th Century. When did your Baptist ancestors originally determine that Scripture was "errant"?

Is truthfulness (now or ever) dependent upon the textual perfection of your Bible?

Bruce, I find the Scriptures, those who recorded them, and the One who inspired them infinitely more reliable and truthful than unbelieving critics who deny them. By the way, was your question your final answer to my question? Also, when you make reference to "your Bible", what are you implying?

In His Grace and Peace,

In other words, you do not believe your Bible (the one in your hands) is textually perfect.

So tell my why do you place your faith in your non-perfect (errant, in your terminology) Bible?

[T. D. Webb]

Bruce, it is curious that you assert the theory of Biblical inerrancy found its birth in the 19th Century. When did your Baptist ancestors originally determine that Scripture was "errant"?

Is truthfulness (now or ever) dependent upon the textual perfection of your Bible?

Bruce, I find the Scriptures, those who recorded them, and the One who inspired them infinitely more reliable and truthful than unbelieving critics who deny them. By the way, was your question your final answer to my question?

In other words, you do not believe your Bible (the one in your hands) is textually perfect.

So tell my why do you place your faith in your non-perfect (errant, in your terminology) Bible?

Bruce, nice dodge. . .For one who has no answers, you are seemingly full of questions. My initial question remains unanswered. When did your Baptist ancestors originally determine that Scripture was "errant"? While you are avoiding the first question, why don't we try two more. . .Will you specifically identify the individuals who originally asserted that Scripture was errant? Secondly, considering their hundreds, if not thousands of references to Scripture, and the innumerable opportunities they had, can you cite a single instance of Christ, his Disciples, or any writer of Scripture asserting an example of "errancy" in Scripture?


In His Grace and Peace,

[Bruce Gourley]

Bruce, nice dodge. . .For one who has no answers, you are seemingly full of questions. My initial question remains unanswered. When did your Baptist ancestors originally determine that Scripture was "errant"? While you are avoiding the first question, why don't we try two more. . .Will you specifically identify the individuals who originally asserted that Scripture was errant? Secondly, considering their hundreds, if not thousands of references to Scripture, and the innumerable opportunities they had, can you cite a single instance of Christ, his Disciples, or any writer of Scripture asserting an example of "errancy" in Scripture?

In His Grace and Peace,

As we both know, you already know the answer: just as you do not believe your Bible to be textually perfect (error-free), your Baptist ancestors believed the same. Your "errant" (your word) Bible does not diminish your faith in its truthfulness, and the same was true for your Baptist ancestors.

[Dave Roberts]

Bruce, nice dodge. . .For one who has no answers, you are seemingly full of questions. My initial question remains unanswered. When did your Baptist ancestors originally determine that Scripture was "errant"? While you are avoiding the first question, why don't we try two more. . .Will you specifically identify the individuals who originally asserted that Scripture was errant? Secondly, considering their hundreds, if not thousands of references to Scripture, and the innumerable opportunities they had, can you cite a single instance of Christ, his Disciples, or any writer of Scripture asserting an example of "errancy" in Scripture?

In His Grace and Peace,


In His Grace and Peace,

At least from my understanding of Baptist history, most Baptists were biblicists. By that I mean that they did not have a formal theory of biblical inerrancy (technically only of the original autographs). They spoke of the Bible as true, a giving testimony to God's revelation to man. Inerrancy was born after Wellhausen and others in Germany began to offer more scientifically based studies of the scripture. The word, at least in most of my readings, does not enter Baptist life until after the publication by Warfield et. al. of their pamplets in the 1920's and certainly never gained universal acceptance. Only after 1978 and the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy did the SBC suddenly begin using the word "inerrancy."

[T. D. Webb]

Bruce, nice dodge. . .For one who has no answers, you are seemingly full of questions. My initial question remains unanswered. When did your Baptist ancestors originally determine that Scripture was "errant"? While you are avoiding the first question, why don't we try two more. . .Will you specifically identify the individuals who originally asserted that Scripture was errant? Secondly, considering their hundreds, if not thousands of references to Scripture, and the innumerable opportunities they had, can you cite a single instance of Christ, his Disciples, or any writer of Scripture asserting an example of "errancy" in Scripture?

As we both know, you already know the answer: just as you do not believe your Bible to be textually perfect (error-free), your Baptist ancestors believed the same. Your "errant" (your word) Bible does not diminish your faith in its truthfulness, and the same was true for your Baptist ancestors.

Bruce, your reluctance to provide an answer other than an intuitive assumption that I already know the answer dodges the fact that either you don't know, or are unwilling to reveal what you do know about when the Scriptures were first declared errant in Baptist history and by whom.

In His Grace and Peace,

[T. D. Webb]

At least from my understanding of Baptist history, most Baptists were biblicists. By that I mean that they did not have a formal theory of biblical inerrancy (technically only of the original autographs). They spoke of the Bible as true, a giving testimony to God's revelation to man.

Dave, your point is well taken. While the specific word, "inerrancy", may be a more recent way of expressing the truthfulness of Scripture, the Bible has historically been viewed as true, giving testimony of God's revelation to man. If Wellhausen's literary product (beginning after 1870) questioning the source and origin of the first five books of The Old Testament was the stimulus for the response of Baptists and other Christians in using the word "inerrancy", then can we say with any degree of credibility that the historic Baptist view is that the Bible is "errant"?

Tim, I will ignore the personal "obtuse" jab to put the question to you. When and by whom in Baptist history was the Bible labelled as "errant"?


In His Grace and Peace,

[Bruce Gourley]

Bruce, nice dodge. . .For one who has no answers, you are seemingly full of questions. My initial question remains unanswered. When did your Baptist ancestors originally determine that Scripture was "errant"? While you are avoiding the first question, why don't we try two more. . .Will you specifically identify the individuals who originally asserted that Scripture was errant? Secondly, considering their hundreds, if not thousands of references to Scripture, and the innumerable opportunities they had, can you cite a single instance of Christ, his Disciples, or any writer of Scripture asserting an example of "errancy" in Scripture?

As we both know, you already know the answer: just as you do not believe your Bible to be textually perfect (error-free), your Baptist ancestors believed the same. Your "errant" (your word) Bible does not diminish your faith in its truthfulness, and the same was true for your Baptist ancestors.

Bruce, your reluctance to provide an answer other than an intuitive assumption that I already know the answer dodges the fact that either you don't know, or are unwilling to reveal what you do know about when the Scriptures were first declared errant in Baptist history and by whom.

In His Grace and Peace,

Since you do not believe your own Bible is textually perfect - and therefore you believe your Bible is errant - you tell me where and how you arrived at this conclusion? (Maybe you have a better understanding of your own errancy view than you do of the history of the Bible, or of Baptists.)

[T. D. Webb]

Since you do not believe your own Bible is textually perfect - and therefore you believe your Bible is errant - you tell me where and how you arrived at this conclusion? (Maybe you have a better understanding of your own errancy view than you do of the history of the Bible, or of Baptists.)

I'm teachable, Bruce. Since you are such a scholar of Bible history and of Baptists, when and by whom was the Bible first declared to be errant?

In His Grace and Peace,

[Stephen Fox]

TD: Have you read Stricklin's Geneaology of Dissent?

If not, why not.
Flick should be able to help you come up with a copy out there in Oklahoma, even through Bruce Prescott if that is what it comes too.
No excuse for any good Baptist church library not having a copy

Read the discussion about the Book of Eli.
If me and Denzel Washington and his son who I understand guided Denzel toward the film; if all three of us understand the Incarnated Word trumping Inerrancy, looks like you'd get it too.

[Bruce Gourley]

Since you do not believe your own Bible is textually perfect - and therefore you believe your Bible is errant - you tell me where and how you arrived at this conclusion? (Maybe you have a better understanding of your own errancy view than you do of the history of the Bible, or of Baptists.)

I'm teachable, Bruce. Since you are such a scholar of Bible history and of Baptists, when and by whom was the Bible first declared to be errant?

You're an errantist; you tell me where your errancy view originated.

[Stephen Fox]

Bruce: Check out the SBCimpact.net discussion move to takeSouthern out of the SBC

I think Mohler's next blog may name Denzel Washington a Heretic cause of his thinking on the Incarnation

[T. D. Webb]

I'm teachable, Bruce. Since you are such a scholar of Bible history and of Baptists, when and by whom was the Bible first declared to be errant?

You're an errantist; you tell me where your errancy view originated.

Bruce, if "errancy in the Bible" was the position that Baptists have historically held, the facts should be easy for you to document. Your tactic of continuously attempting to change the subject rather than simply answering my questions leads one to conclude that either you don't know when the doctrine of errancy in the Bible began with Baptists (and who, specifically, these Baptists were) or you are embarrassed that the specific theory of errancy is contemporaneous with the view that Scripture is inerrant in Baptist doctrinal history. Suffice it to say that there is substantially greater congruency with the views that the "Bible is true" and "inerrancy of Scripture" as opposed to the views that the "Bible is true" and the "Bible is errant".

In His Grace and Peace,

[Bruce Gourley]

I'm teachable, Bruce. Since you are such a scholar of Bible history and of Baptists, when and by whom was the Bible first declared to be errant?

You're an errantist; you tell me where your errancy view originated.

Bruce, if "errancy in the Bible" was the position that Baptists have historically held, the facts should be easy for you to document. Your tactic of continuously attempting to change the subject rather than simply answering my questions leads one to conclude that either you don't know when the doctrine of errancy in the Bible began with Baptists (and who, specifically, these Baptists were) or you are embarrassed that the specific theory of errancy is contemporaneous with the view that Scripture is inerrant in Baptist doctrinal history. Suffice it to say that there is substantially greater congruency with the views that the "Bible is true" and "inerrancy of Scripture" as opposed to the views that the "Bible is true" and the "Bible is errant".

I guess you hold Jesus in contempt as well, as one of his primary way of answering questions was with another question.

So, I'll reply to your question by again asking: why are you an errantist? are you embarrassed about being an errantist? although you believe your Bible is not error-free, do you still believe it is truthful?

[T. D. Webb]

I guess you hold Jesus in contempt as well, as one of his primary way of answering questions was with another question.

Bruce, please cut out the blatant condescension and belittling. Classless and arrogant remarks like the "I guess you hold Jesus in contempt. . ." demonstrate the desperate ends to which one will go to divert attention from his own failure to answer a few simple questions. By the way, what first hand accounts do you know about Jesus other than what is written in Scripture? Jesus, Himself, validated Himself and His teachings over and over again by quoting Scripture (including passages from the first five books of the Bible) which some here assert to be "myths". Bruce, can you point to any passage in Scripture that Jesus asserted was untrue or inaccurate? But then again, from your point of view, the Scripture which relates that Jesus answered questions with questions might be in error in itself. . .

So, I'll reply to your question by again asking: why are you an errantist? are you embarrassed about being an errantist? although you believe your Bible is not error-free, do you still believe it is truthful?

Bruce, please. . . When Jesus answered the questions of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees with questions- - -He answered their questions! If your goal was to emulate Jesus' in this regard, forget it. To broadly paraphrase the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. . . I hate to burst your bubble, Bruce, but you are no Jesus Christ. . .

Seriously, I began this dialogue with you by answering your initial question, Bruce. Your responses have been to ignore answering any and all of my questions. Moreover, my views on errancy bear no relevance with my questions to you. To put it simply, you are stonewalling, Bruce, in a futile attempt to move the spotlight off your own failure to answer, even to the point of employing words I have previously used in this discussion in a juvenile attempt to confuse the issues. So be it. . .I have better things to do than counseling you on legitimate argumentation practices.


In His Grace and Peace,

[Bruce Gourley]

Seriously, I began this dialogue with you by answering your initial question, Bruce. Your responses have been to ignore answering any and all of my questions. Moreover, my views on errancy bear no relevance with my questions to you. To put it simply, you are stonewalling, Bruce, in a futile attempt to move the spotlight off your own failure to answer, even to the point of employing words I have previously used in this discussion in a juvenile attempt to confuse the issues. So be it. . .I have better things to do than counseling you on legitimate argumentation practices.

Quite contrary, your belief in the errancy of the Bible in your hand is relevant to this entire discussion, and this discussion is fruitless until you are willing to come to grips with the reasons you yourself do not believe in the textual perfection of your Bible.

[T. D. Webb]

Quite contrary, your belief in the errancy of the Bible in your hand is relevant to this entire discussion, and this discussion is fruitless until you are willing to come to grips with the reasons you yourself do not believe in the textual perfection of your Bible.

Notwithstanding the sincerity of your concern for my "coming to grips. . .", Bruce, and the ominous threat that this discussion will be doomed to be barron of fruit unless I dance to your tune, I patiently wait for you to address the historicity of Baptist doctrine affirming "errancy in Scripture". Names, dates, and documentation, please. . .

In His Grace and Peace,

[Bruce Gourley]

Quite contrary, your belief in the errancy of the Bible in your hand is relevant to this entire discussion, and this discussion is fruitless until you are willing to come to grips with the reasons you yourself do not believe in the textual perfection of your Bible.

Notwithstanding the sincerity of your concern for my "coming to grips. . .", Bruce, and the ominous threat that this discussion will be doomed to be barron of fruit unless I dance to your tune, I patiently wait for you to address the historicity of Baptist doctrine affirming "errancy in Scripture". Names, dates, and documentation, please. . .

In His Grace and Peace,

You believe your Bible is errant. Why?

[T. D. Webb]

You believe your Bible is errant. Why?

Is the cold getting to you, Bruce. There will be no further answers from me until you first answer my questions. And that's my final answer.

In His Grace and Peace,

[Haruo]

I can't see any evidence that either of you has ever espoused "errancy of the Bible" and I am mystified why you each seem intent on insisting that the other has done so.

[David Flick]

Flick, jumping into this discussion:

Johnny Pierce's excellent editorial in the January 2010 Baptist's Today may or may not shed light on this discussion. But I believe it does and think he hits the nail on the head. Here' a link to the editorial: The Bible tells us so - or does it?

Selected excerpts:

The Bible gets blamed for a lot of our own foolishness. So much narrow-mindedness, prejudice and even hatred get justified by selected biblical rendering.

With good intentions, many church leaders gave those of us raised in Baptist congregations an appreciation for the Bible but a less-than-honest understanding of its inspiration and purpose. We were taught by example and silence to ignore or excuse inconsistencies within the larger and deeper biblical revelation.

Selected excerpts:
We were presupposed to the belief that the Bible was one big cohesive book — fully harmonized in its message of God and redemption. Critical analysis, no matter how honest, was not to be applied to a holy text.

The result was an elevation of the Bible to an equal status with God —without recognition of idolatry. Instead of being embraced as the written Word of God — an important revelation that leads to an ongoing, redemptive relationship with the Living Word of God — the Bible was often presented as an end rather than a means to faith.

We were taught that “all Scripture is inspired by God,” but learned by example that the Bible was to be read and applied selectively. “The Bible says so …” could preface most any nonsensical statement and be given the irrefutable status of divine authority.

[...]

Well-packaged, immovable, easy answers — propped by selected readings of the Bible — to life’s tough questions may satisfy a few. But an honest, ongoing struggle to follow Jesus sounds much more like the desired role for being his disciples.

“Believe like me — I’m right,” has never been the message given to Christians — no matter how or where you search the Bible in hopes of finding a slither of support.

Tom, I believe Bruce, Dave, & Tim are right. There's no such thing as an "Inerrant Bible." Inerrancy is a totally modernist view of scripture...

[T. D. Webb]

Tom, I believe Bruce, Dave, & Tim are right. There's no such thing as an "Inerrant Bible." Inerrancy is a totally modernist view of scripture...

Respectfully, David, I think you, Bruce, and Tim are missing my point. If one considers the term "inerrancy". . ."a totally modernist view of scripture", are you implying that "errancy" is a more historic view of Scripture? If so, when and who propounded such a view? Moreover, with all of His opportunities to do so, why did not Jesus ever identify a single error or untruth found in the extant Scripture of His day?

In His Grace and Peace,

[Dave Roberts]

I've been watching you and Bruce play this theological ping pong for a while. And I've not been responding because what you are asking for makes no sense. There is no "theory of errancy" because no one creates a theory or an argument about a theory that doesn't yet exist. No one creates a counter argument to an as yet uncreated theory.

Inerrancy is a technical theological theory of the inspiration of scripture that was created in the 19th century. It doesn't mean what you are implying it means. Errancy and inerrancy aren't opposites. In fact modern inerrancy has been highly qualified by Biblical scholars not to mean a whole host of errors including math errors and discrepancies, grammar errors, and errors that relate to the science that Biblical writers wouldn't have known about. In fact some inerrency statements have so many qualifications that the term inerrency almost has no relationship to the common man on the street understanding of the word. In most cases technically the inerrancy theory almost means qualified errancy. The theory is full of holes, requires more theological gymnastics than the olympics to make it work, and worst of all the theory is not found in scripture, it is not found in early church history, and it is not found to be the theory of early Christians much less early Baptist, period.

That conservative and fundamentalists Christians buy into the theory of inerrency is almost flabbergasting given that it is the most modernist technical and recent theory of inspiration in existence. The theory comes very close to lifting up the Bible to the level of deity. To do so verges on a form of idolatry. And the fact that it is treated that way is attested to by Southern Baptists removing Jesus as the criteria from the interpretation of scriptures in the BFM. And worse is that theory makes no difference anyway given that we are talking about the inerrancy of Biblical documents we don't have. Until you find the original manuscripts TD, how does it help to believe that these manuscripts were perfect? Or, are you going to suggest next that our modern English Biblical translations are perfect as well?

Tim, has certainly made the poin well that I was trying to make. It is a logical fallacy to assume that those who do not subswcribe to "inerrancy" must subscribe to "errancy." The Bible claim for itself "inspiration." I take my stand with that term.

[scottaerwin]

TD,

I have simple question which is probably redundant, but why do you believe that errancy is the opposite of inerrancy?

Scott

[T. D. Webb]

TD, I have simple question which is probably redundant, but why do you believe that errancy is the opposite of inerrancy?

Well, Scott, how do you define "errant"? How do you define "inerrant"?

My dictionary defines the words as follows:

er·rant (erÆÃnt), adj.
deviating from the regular or proper course; erring; straying.

in·er·rant (in erÆÃnt, -ûrÆ-), adj.
free from error; infallible. (my emphasis)

Scott, just how synonymous is the word "erring" and the phrase "free from error"? Even to this semi-literate Okie, they appear to be diametrically opposed to one another. . .which brings me to a question for you? If the Bible is not "inerrant", how could it be anything but "errant"?

In His Grace and Peace,

In His Grace and Peace,