The idea of Biblical inerrancy is like the idea of a perpetual motion machine, they both fail to take into account the nature of reality.
The process of communication requires two parties, a sender and a receiver. Even if the sender were perfect, and sent a perfect signal, there would still always be noise interfering with the transmission, just as friction and counter-electromotive force always interfere with a machine's ability to produce as much energy as it consumes.
And if the receiver weren't also perfect, the communication could not be perfect, even with a perfect sender and signal. If I presume that I could receive what an inerrant Bible has to say, then I am presuming that my understanding is as whole and persistent as God's, which it manifestly is not.
Hebrews 1:2 says God spoke in times past to the fathers through the prophets, but in these last days has spoken to us by His Son. I think God's primary way of communicating with us is by His spirit through our Lord Jesus Christ. I think the Bible is only a secondary witness to confirm or deny what we think God is communicating with us through the spirit. Even so, we still have to exercise judgment. To think that the Bible is our primary channel for hearing from God, and to treat it as inerrant, is to shirk from exercising judgment, and to cut ourselves off from the spirit.
The freedom to choose entails the responsibility to exercise judgment.
Excuse me all for sounding trite, but I believe the end is near (or should be) for this topic. The points have been well-made concerning TWI’s method of “research”. I fear that more posts will merely hide those great points in obscurity – especially among over 400 of them to this point in time.
Much has been learned on this, (and a few related topics as well) and I am thankful for that, but lately I have seen nothing I would call provocative on the subject. To me, it is becoming threadbare. (except there probably will still be many more “threads” to come! )
I almost cannot fathom that the sub-topic of the “inerrancy (or not) of the scriptures” (which has been carried on from rather early in this long-winded discussion) has been done so even without a “good working definition of it” -- that is, according to at least one individual. That irony makes me laugh so hard I could just cry!
Of late, in my heart I seem reminded of a verse relating to this matter:
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
God considers preaching [that which is proclaimed by a herald or public crier] to be foolishness. [Greek = moria, meaning silliness, i.e. absurdity—from which we derive the word moron! ] God has implied here that it should have been rather obvious for people to realize about Him through “world wisdom”; that is, by noticing his handywork in nature. Truly He is all around us in that respect. In Romans 1:20 He declares there is no excuse for anyone not to believe because there is so much evidence of Him “by the things which were made.”
But since He realized people still didn’t believe, somehow it pleased him to even condescend to the moronic level of "preaching" in order that people may yet be saved.
It does seem rather silly to go on and on and on about something and still consider it wise to do so. Wisdom is usually stated plainly and simply. But somehow, each party involved in a “debate” supposes that their next pithy point may just be the “final word” on the matter.
But alas, such is not the case. Some will believe, and some will not. And that is true no matter how many words are used to try and sway somebody one way or the other. I believe the majority of those who will have changed their minds (or at least learned about the topic at hand) have already done so long ago. And as I said earlier, anyone who has a question along these lines may be hard-pressed to find the best answers when they are hidden in such a “sea of rhetoric”. And this sea may yet become a mighty ocean!
The initial posts had done a good job in helping people see the point. Many of the rest only served to “win a few more”, and to “divide the camps”. I perceive that much of what has been shared for the last 100 posts or so may equate to little more than a debate among those who adhere (or not) to the original topic, despite the fact that neither will move an inch. What does it serve to continue providing more fuel for an already raging fire?
Pr 26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out…
I’m afraid that (for me) this topic has become somewhat hackneyed. When will it end?
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body of Christ talking amongst itself freely. This freedom was pretty much squelched in TWI. This thread will end when it ends and not until. We do not need a self-appointed arbitrator to tell us its time to end it now.
You have said, “Holding to inerrancy is foolish on three counts. First, even if the original autographs were perfect, we don't have the orinal autographs, and there is no way to recover them. Two, even if the Bible were perfect, NO person's interpretation of it could be perfect, with the possible exception of Jesus Christ's. Third, if God committed His entire Self to a book, He would be putting Himself into an awfully small box.”
The inerrancy issue is very important to some who do think the the originals were “perfect”. I’m not sure if that makes us fools or not. How does that word “perfect” actually flesh out in the handling of our present texts? This is why there are institutes of higher learning on the subject (Evangelical Bible colleges, seminaries even some divinity schools). Degrees in the field of textual criticism, hermeneutics and languages. Its not necessarily an easy task. Especially when the prophets are spread out over such a long period of time, etc., etc.
Further, some think that the autographa is possible to recover. Does this remove the thorny issues of the pre-scientific prophets or the forms in which the texts come to us with their eastern cultural backwash, figures of speech, individual ways of expression, etc? No, but neither does that further daunting task frustrate the effort to recover (as best as possible) words that matter.
Some pursue the holy grail of the “perfect” interpretation of the “perfect” text. That systematic theology, a demanding discipline and one fraught with dialogue. It was (and is) my favorite thing to do. It is actually getting out into the world practically what one has discovered is doctrinally sound. It’s not all academics, but certainly starts there. The end has to be bringing “deliverance to the captives” IMHO, or all the academics is pretty much BS.
I believe God has limited Himself (at times) to our living for Him. If that is “putting Himself in an awfully small box”, than I agree we have some work to do. And that starts with making sure we are “fools for Christ” and hopefully the pontificators will “put up with fools, being so wise yourselves”, as Paul admonished the Corinthians.
As to your statement in your most recent post (#402) (“I think the Bible is only a secondary witness to confirm or deny what we think God is communicating with us through the spirit. Even so, we still have to exercise judgment. To think that the Bible is our primary channel for hearing from God, and to treat it as inerrant, is to shirk from exercising judgment, and to cut ourselves off from the spirit.”), I think that the testimony of Scripture (looking at Jesus and the other prophets) is that they relied on the texts as much as we should. I know Jesus did. You can’t be speaking Psalms 22, 23 and 24 as you’re being crucified and not have that healthy respect to the "finer points". Judgement comes when you have something in mind and can press other thoughts up against that. If you don’t start with something (say the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures) then one will be all over the map trying to figure out what his/her real beliefs are. That being said, if a Muslim or Hindi wants to start with their own text fine, but Christianity usually starts with their texts and “judges” accordingly.
And I don’t think that this cuts us off from the spirit in any way, but rather gives direction as to where that spirit might go or might be speaking or taking us. I'm thinking a life led following that spirit is the most exciting (I'm thinking Philip and the eunuch, Elisha and Elijah, Jesus...). In a very subtle sentence in 1 John, he says to “test” the spirits (kinda a combination of both the text and your spirituality, IMHO). I love that combination. Saw it last night at my son’s church in Manhattan as the pastor’s program of hitting the streets actually allowed the kids to “see” things and deliver a women from her maladies because they acted on what they saw. If they didn’t know about receiving revelation (outlined as it is in the Bible) they wouldn’t have even stepped out into the whatever…
The idea of Biblical inerrancy is like the idea of a perpetual motion machine, they both fail to take into account the nature of reality.
The process of communication requires two parties, a sender and a receiver. Even if the sender were perfect, and sent a perfect signal, there would still always be noise interfering with the transmission, just as friction and counter-electromotive force always interfere with a machine's ability to produce as much energy as it consumes.
And if the receiver weren't also perfect, the communication could not be perfect, even with a perfect sender and signal.
Excellent point.
I’m afraid that (for me) this topic has become somewhat hackneyed. When will it end?
Probably never. But you can always stop reading it. Just a thought.
If one believes that the "originals" were perfect, then why wouldn't such a one want to try to recover them, or at least get as close as possible? I think, assuming that there were perfect originals, the quest to recreate them would be an exciting adventure, more preferable than throwing up one's hands in frustration that they no longer exist.
I apologize and ask you to forgive me for calling one of your beliefs "foolish." I believed and taught it once myself. I value the contributions you make to the great conversations we have on these forums, and I need to be more diligent in recognizing and respecting the dignity of each and every poster. Otherwise, I should not in good conscience sign my posts,
If one believes that the "originals" were perfect, then why wouldn't such a one want to try to recover them, or at least get as close as possible? I think, assuming that there were perfect originals, the quest to recreate them would be an exciting adventure, more preferable than throwing up one's hands in frustration that they no longer exist.
Oak,
I'm thinking I can find a better word for "perfect" for the text, but it'll have to do for now. I can't even begin to describe the fun it's been over the 40 years of study. The fact that my kids (brilliant as they both are...) will go further in all this is even more exciting.
RE
roberterasmus,
I apologize and ask you to forgive me for calling one of your beliefs "foolish." I believed and taught it once myself. I value the contributions you make to the great conversations we have on these forums, and I need to be more diligent in recognizing and respecting the dignity of each and every poster. Otherwise, I should not in good conscience sign my posts,
Love,
Steve
Steve,
Please continue to sign your posts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Others here have said over and over again, "This is not what we got to do in TWI." I agree and whether someone thinks like I do is not at issue. My wife will tell you that no one does... 30 years of this is more than any woman should have to endure.
But thank you for your kind words. If you have a hankering you can chime in on the doctrinal thread on the subject.
I'm thinking I can find a better word for "perfect" for the text, but it'll have to do for now. I can't even begin to describe the fun it's been over the 40 years of study. The fact that my kids (brilliant as they both are...) will go further in all this is even more exciting.
Nothing wrong with the word "perfect"...I think it communicates well. I personally don't agree with your premises, but I respect your belief and think your quest for the originals would prove exciting and rewarding for one who believes as you do. Good luck!
Please continue to sign your posts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Others here have said over and over again, "This is not what we got to do in TWI." I agree and whether someone thinks like I do is not at issue. My wife will tell you that no one does... 30 years of this is more than any woman should have to endure.
But thank you for your kind words. If you have a hankering you can chime in on the doctrinal thread on the subject.
RE
Thank you, RE. How do I find the doctrinal threads?
Cool! I was away from Greasespot for a time and the format was changed. When I scrolled to the "archived" stuff at the end of "About the Way" in the new format, I thought that was "all she wrote". I had been in the "About the Way" section instead the forums homepage. Thanks, Waysider!
This is K*n Br*own, a grad of the 3rd Corps who worked as W*alter C*um*ins assistant in the 1980s to about 1988 or so and he was also in charge of the Library at HQ but was not "officially" on the Research Team. I know him because I was in the 2nd Corps when he was in the 3rd Corps and when I was on the Research team 1984-1986 my desk was right across from his in the research room for two years. As it says on this web site, he taught math at one time and he was ordained by VPW. He was a loyal wayfer and it looks as if he still holds to VPW dogmas.
For those interested, Ken Br*wn's response to this can be found here:
The inerrancy issue is very important to some who do think the the originals were "perfect".
RE
Indeed, it is.
Most of us acknowledge that the inerrancy of the Bible (that it is free of errors or discrepancies of any kind) is not only a hallmark of fundamentalist thought, but of many evangelical positions, as Bob points out it is addressed in many institutions of higher learning. We understand it comes from the idea of divine perfection, i.e. that "God is perfect," so His Word (the Bible) must be "perfect." This is an idea VP inherited and propounded in PFAL over and over again.
Where this idea comes from is interesting to me, so I thought the following info might be useful to others interested in this thread. This is from the biblical scholar, James Barr, in his book Fundamentalism, pg. 277:
"When conservatives say that the Bible is inspired by God, this means for them that it is completely without faults, failings, errors or discrepancies of any kind, or that such as exist are so absolutely minimal as not to count. What is the basis for this conclusion? There is no biblical or exegetical ground upon which it can be made, and conservative apologists do not even pretend to attempt an exegetical demonstration of it. [ Penworks note: exegetical means explanatory, in this case explain from the Bible.] The implication is a philosophical one. The nature of God is to be perfect; and if he involves himself in something, as he would do in inspiring a collection of books, these books would partake in the divine qualities of perfection...This way of thinking about God does not come from the Bible. In the Bible God is presented above all as active and personal: he can be argued out of positions he has already taken up, he operates in a narrative sequence and not out of a static perfection. The picture of God which presents perfection as the essence of the doctrine of God is clearly of Greek origin and is well represented in the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. It was incorporated into Christian thought at a very early date and has remained extremely influential. "
James Barr's credentials are outlined in several places, including in this tribute by Vanderbuilt University upon his death:
Is it just me or does some people's claims to having grasped perfection only serve to magnify both their faults and the effects of their faults because of the implicite delusion in claiming their understanding of perfection?
Is it just me or does some people's claims to having grasped perfection only serve to magnify both their faults and the effects of their faults because of the implicite delusion in claiming their understanding of perfection?
I think claiming to be holding perfection can be an ego trip because knowledge puffeth up.
Given that I myself can be caught up in the same folly and because of having spent so much time in a group with another false Apostle who spent a lot of time spouting on about the scripture's perfection, a lot of times people who preach the innerancy of the scriptures seem to me to be traveling down an easily recognized road to me.
Characterized by being unable to accept reasonable correction or even just reasonable considerations from another.
This is Charlene Lamy Edge letting you know that this article is linked to my story here called, An Affinity for Windows. This month, April 2011, my story was solicited by John Knapp, LMHC, to appear on his site: Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse. It is nice to see how many people have read it there already. I'm grateful to contribute to the conversation, taking place on so many web sites sharing people's stories of understanding, growth, and healing after being in a group that did not serve their best interest.
My relationship with CHSCA is not a formal one. I do not consider myself a member of CHSCA, nor have I received counseling from the CHSCA organization or from any other cult counseling group; however, I am glad for any help anyone can receive from CHSCA or anywhere else.
Further, I am not affilitated with any cult awareness group or anti-cult movement. My intent is to let my story be available for anyone who might find it useful to their journey.
An Affinity for Windows was first published by Red Pepper Press, Winter Park, FL, 2004 in an antholgy, Shifting Gears: Startling Moments In and Out of the Classroom, 22 stories by women of Rollins College, edited by five people, including a Rollins writing professor. Visit: Mad About Words for a few sample pages of the book, which is now out-of-print.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
Steve Lortz
The idea of Biblical inerrancy is like the idea of a perpetual motion machine, they both fail to take into account the nature of reality.
The process of communication requires two parties, a sender and a receiver. Even if the sender were perfect, and sent a perfect signal, there would still always be noise interfering with the transmission, just as friction and counter-electromotive force always interfere with a machine's ability to produce as much energy as it consumes.
And if the receiver weren't also perfect, the communication could not be perfect, even with a perfect sender and signal. If I presume that I could receive what an inerrant Bible has to say, then I am presuming that my understanding is as whole and persistent as God's, which it manifestly is not.
Hebrews 1:2 says God spoke in times past to the fathers through the prophets, but in these last days has spoken to us by His Son. I think God's primary way of communicating with us is by His spirit through our Lord Jesus Christ. I think the Bible is only a secondary witness to confirm or deny what we think God is communicating with us through the spirit. Even so, we still have to exercise judgment. To think that the Bible is our primary channel for hearing from God, and to treat it as inerrant, is to shirk from exercising judgment, and to cut ourselves off from the spirit.
The freedom to choose entails the responsibility to exercise judgment.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Excuse me all for sounding trite, but I believe the end is near (or should be) for this topic. The points have been well-made concerning TWI’s method of “research”. I fear that more posts will merely hide those great points in obscurity – especially among over 400 of them to this point in time.
Much has been learned on this, (and a few related topics as well) and I am thankful for that, but lately I have seen nothing I would call provocative on the subject. To me, it is becoming threadbare. (except there probably will still be many more “threads” to come!
)
I almost cannot fathom that the sub-topic of the “inerrancy (or not) of the scriptures” (which has been carried on from rather early in this long-winded discussion) has been done so even without a “good working definition of it” -- that is, according to at least one individual. That irony makes me laugh so hard I could just cry!
Of late, in my heart I seem reminded of a verse relating to this matter:
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
God considers preaching [that which is proclaimed by a herald or public crier] to be foolishness. [Greek = moria, meaning silliness, i.e. absurdity—from which we derive the word moron!
] God has implied here that it should have been rather obvious for people to realize about Him through “world wisdom”; that is, by noticing his handywork in nature. Truly He is all around us in that respect. In Romans 1:20 He declares there is no excuse for anyone not to believe because there is so much evidence of Him “by the things which were made.”
But since He realized people still didn’t believe, somehow it pleased him to even condescend to the moronic level of "preaching" in order that people may yet be saved.
It does seem rather silly to go on and on and on about something and still consider it wise to do so.
Wisdom is usually stated plainly and simply. But somehow, each party involved in a “debate” supposes that their next pithy point may just be the “final word” on the matter.
But alas, such is not the case. Some will believe, and some will not. And that is true no matter how many words are used to try and sway somebody one way or the other. I believe the majority of those who will have changed their minds (or at least learned about the topic at hand) have already done so long ago. And as I said earlier, anyone who has a question along these lines may be hard-pressed to find the best answers when they are hidden in such a “sea of rhetoric”. And this sea may yet become a mighty ocean!
The initial posts had done a good job in helping people see the point. Many of the rest only served to “win a few more”, and to “divide the camps”. I perceive that much of what has been shared for the last 100 posts or so may equate to little more than a debate among those who adhere (or not) to the original topic, despite the fact that neither will move an inch. What does it serve to continue providing more fuel for an already raging fire?
Pr 26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out…
I’m afraid that (for me) this topic has become somewhat hackneyed. When will it end?
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body of Christ talking amongst itself freely. This freedom was pretty much squelched in TWI. This thread will end when it ends and not until. We do not need a self-appointed arbitrator to tell us its time to end it now.
Have a great day!
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Steve,
You have said, “Holding to inerrancy is foolish on three counts. First, even if the original autographs were perfect, we don't have the orinal autographs, and there is no way to recover them. Two, even if the Bible were perfect, NO person's interpretation of it could be perfect, with the possible exception of Jesus Christ's. Third, if God committed His entire Self to a book, He would be putting Himself into an awfully small box.”
The inerrancy issue is very important to some who do think the the originals were “perfect”. I’m not sure if that makes us fools or not. How does that word “perfect” actually flesh out in the handling of our present texts? This is why there are institutes of higher learning on the subject (Evangelical Bible colleges, seminaries even some divinity schools). Degrees in the field of textual criticism, hermeneutics and languages. Its not necessarily an easy task. Especially when the prophets are spread out over such a long period of time, etc., etc.
Further, some think that the autographa is possible to recover. Does this remove the thorny issues of the pre-scientific prophets or the forms in which the texts come to us with their eastern cultural backwash, figures of speech, individual ways of expression, etc? No, but neither does that further daunting task frustrate the effort to recover (as best as possible) words that matter.
Some pursue the holy grail of the “perfect” interpretation of the “perfect” text. That systematic theology, a demanding discipline and one fraught with dialogue. It was (and is) my favorite thing to do. It is actually getting out into the world practically what one has discovered is doctrinally sound. It’s not all academics, but certainly starts there. The end has to be bringing “deliverance to the captives” IMHO, or all the academics is pretty much BS.
I believe God has limited Himself (at times) to our living for Him. If that is “putting Himself in an awfully small box”, than I agree we have some work to do. And that starts with making sure we are “fools for Christ” and hopefully the pontificators will “put up with fools, being so wise yourselves”, as Paul admonished the Corinthians.
As to your statement in your most recent post (#402) (“I think the Bible is only a secondary witness to confirm or deny what we think God is communicating with us through the spirit. Even so, we still have to exercise judgment. To think that the Bible is our primary channel for hearing from God, and to treat it as inerrant, is to shirk from exercising judgment, and to cut ourselves off from the spirit.”), I think that the testimony of Scripture (looking at Jesus and the other prophets) is that they relied on the texts as much as we should. I know Jesus did. You can’t be speaking Psalms 22, 23 and 24 as you’re being crucified and not have that healthy respect to the "finer points". Judgement comes when you have something in mind and can press other thoughts up against that. If you don’t start with something (say the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures) then one will be all over the map trying to figure out what his/her real beliefs are. That being said, if a Muslim or Hindi wants to start with their own text fine, but Christianity usually starts with their texts and “judges” accordingly.
And I don’t think that this cuts us off from the spirit in any way, but rather gives direction as to where that spirit might go or might be speaking or taking us. I'm thinking a life led following that spirit is the most exciting (I'm thinking Philip and the eunuch, Elisha and Elijah, Jesus...). In a very subtle sentence in 1 John, he says to “test” the spirits (kinda a combination of both the text and your spirituality, IMHO). I love that combination. Saw it last night at my son’s church in Manhattan as the pastor’s program of hitting the streets actually allowed the kids to “see” things and deliver a women from her maladies because they acted on what they saw. If they didn’t know about receiving revelation (outlined as it is in the Bible) they wouldn’t have even stepped out into the whatever…
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Excellent point.
Probably never. But you can always stop reading it. Just a thought.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If one believes that the "originals" were perfect, then why wouldn't such a one want to try to recover them, or at least get as close as possible? I think, assuming that there were perfect originals, the quest to recreate them would be an exciting adventure, more preferable than throwing up one's hands in frustration that they no longer exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
roberterasmus,
I apologize and ask you to forgive me for calling one of your beliefs "foolish." I believed and taught it once myself. I value the contributions you make to the great conversations we have on these forums, and I need to be more diligent in recognizing and respecting the dignity of each and every poster. Otherwise, I should not in good conscience sign my posts,
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Oak,
I'm thinking I can find a better word for "perfect" for the text, but it'll have to do for now. I can't even begin to describe the fun it's been over the 40 years of study. The fact that my kids (brilliant as they both are...) will go further in all this is even more exciting.
RE
Steve,
Please continue to sign your posts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Others here have said over and over again, "This is not what we got to do in TWI." I agree and whether someone thinks like I do is not at issue. My wife will tell you that no one does... 30 years of this is more than any woman should have to endure.
But thank you for your kind words. If you have a hankering you can chime in on the doctrinal thread on the subject.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thank you, RE. How do I find the doctrinal threads?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Scroll down the main forum page.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/forum/20-doctrinal/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Cool! I was away from Greasespot for a time and the format was changed. When I scrolled to the "archived" stuff at the end of "About the Way" in the new format, I thought that was "all she wrote". I had been in the "About the Way" section instead the forums homepage. Thanks, Waysider!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
For those interested, Ken Br*wn's response to this can be found here:
Ken Brown's response
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Indeed, it is.
Most of us acknowledge that the inerrancy of the Bible (that it is free of errors or discrepancies of any kind) is not only a hallmark of fundamentalist thought, but of many evangelical positions, as Bob points out it is addressed in many institutions of higher learning. We understand it comes from the idea of divine perfection, i.e. that "God is perfect," so His Word (the Bible) must be "perfect." This is an idea VP inherited and propounded in PFAL over and over again.
Where this idea comes from is interesting to me, so I thought the following info might be useful to others interested in this thread. This is from the biblical scholar, James Barr, in his book Fundamentalism, pg. 277:
"When conservatives say that the Bible is inspired by God, this means for them that it is completely without faults, failings, errors or discrepancies of any kind, or that such as exist are so absolutely minimal as not to count. What is the basis for this conclusion? There is no biblical or exegetical ground upon which it can be made, and conservative apologists do not even pretend to attempt an exegetical demonstration of it. [ Penworks note: exegetical means explanatory, in this case explain from the Bible.] The implication is a philosophical one. The nature of God is to be perfect; and if he involves himself in something, as he would do in inspiring a collection of books, these books would partake in the divine qualities of perfection...This way of thinking about God does not come from the Bible. In the Bible God is presented above all as active and personal: he can be argued out of positions he has already taken up, he operates in a narrative sequence and not out of a static perfection. The picture of God which presents perfection as the essence of the doctrine of God is clearly of Greek origin and is well represented in the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. It was incorporated into Christian thought at a very early date and has remained extremely influential. "
James Barr's credentials are outlined in several places, including in this tribute by Vanderbuilt University upon his death:
James Barr
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Interesting. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Is it just me or does some people's claims to having grasped perfection only serve to magnify both their faults and the effects of their faults because of the implicite delusion in claiming their understanding of perfection?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Can you please clarify what you mean a bit more?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I'll give it a shot Penworks.
I think claiming to be holding perfection can be an ego trip because knowledge puffeth up.
Given that I myself can be caught up in the same folly and because of having spent so much time in a group with another false Apostle who spent a lot of time spouting on about the scripture's perfection, a lot of times people who preach the innerancy of the scriptures seem to me to be traveling down an easily recognized road to me.
Characterized by being unable to accept reasonable correction or even just reasonable considerations from another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I think he's saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff) that "I can't be perfect if I think I know what perfection is."
edit
Jeff beat me to the punch.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
ok Soul searcher...hhhmmm
Or, in my work the most annoying coworkers are the ones who already know everything when they do not.
Or perhaps, If I preach perfection, odds are I'm fooling myself.
Or perhaps, all men are liars.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Hello,
This is Charlene Lamy Edge letting you know that this article is linked to my story here called, An Affinity for Windows. This month, April 2011, my story was solicited by John Knapp, LMHC, to appear on his site: Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse. It is nice to see how many people have read it there already. I'm grateful to contribute to the conversation, taking place on so many web sites sharing people's stories of understanding, growth, and healing after being in a group that did not serve their best interest.
My relationship with CHSCA is not a formal one. I do not consider myself a member of CHSCA, nor have I received counseling from the CHSCA organization or from any other cult counseling group; however, I am glad for any help anyone can receive from CHSCA or anywhere else.
Further, I am not affilitated with any cult awareness group or anti-cult movement. My intent is to let my story be available for anyone who might find it useful to their journey.
An Affinity for Windows was first published by Red Pepper Press, Winter Park, FL, 2004 in an antholgy, Shifting Gears: Startling Moments In and Out of the Classroom, 22 stories by women of Rollins College, edited by five people, including a Rollins writing professor. Visit: Mad About Words for a few sample pages of the book, which is now out-of-print.
Thanks,
Charlene
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.