Timothy Bonney wrote: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?
There are so many red herrings in your remarks, Tim, you should open a fish market. By the way, you could set up a strawman booth right next to it. Your screed (as William put it on spot) against inerrancy of Scripture is, I believe, an afront to the One who inspired it. From the time Jesus was in the desert being tempted by Satan to the time he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus did nothing but affirm the Scriptures. There in the Garden, He prayed, "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled." (John 17:12)
Notwithstanding your distorted indictments, Tim, this Christian does not deify anyone or anything. Jesus Christ does not need me, you, or anyone to deify Him. He is Deity, whether we recognise Him as such, or not. Unitarians do not recognise Christ as the Son of God, yet you seem to have more empathy with them than you do Baptists who don't share your mod views about His inspired Word, the Scriptures which reveal Him saying, I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. (John 14:6)
In His Grace and Peace,