Maybe a real-world example will help illustrate my point.
Let's say that I decide to execute a biblical research project about Jesus Christ's ministry as a prophet, which is an office I assume he has based upon internal evidence from the Bible. Specifically, what he said about himself in Matthew 13:57 and Mark 6:4, and what Peter said about him in Acts 3:22-26. And I adopt as the underlying minor premise for my research (my major premise being that the Bible is the Word of God) that prophets pronounce "woes."
First, to present evidence in support of my minor premise, I review everywhere that the words "woe unto" occur from Isaiah through Malachi. And I see that the phrase occurs 27 times -- in Isaiah 3:9,11; 5:8,11,18,20,21,22; 10:1; 24:16; 29:15; 45:9,10; Jeremiah 4:13; 6:4; 13:27; 22:13; 48:1; 50:27; Lamentations 5:16; Ezekiel 13:3; 16:23; Hosea 7:13; Amos 5:18; Habakkuk 2:15,19; Zephaniah 2:5.
Then I look up everywhere Jesus is recorded saying "woe unto," and I discover 28 instances in the Gospels -- Matthew 11:21(twice); 18:7; 23:13,14,15,16,23,25,27,29; 24:19; 26:24; Luke 6:24,25(twice),26; 10:13(twice); 22:42,43,44,46,47,52; 17:1; 21:23; 22:22.
Lo and behold I have not only provided evidence toward proving my thesis, I have also constructed a framework within which I can do further biblical research into the ministry of a prophet. And a framework that provides plenty of valuable material for exegetical exposition to boot.
It is hard -- IMPOSSIBLE actually -- to argue that I am not carrying out research, even if you disagree with my major premise that the Bible is the Word of God. Especially when my research presents evidence that someone can turn around and make use of as fodder, who holds to the major premise that the Bible is a hodge-podge of Bronze and Iron Age Hebrew literature that is held together with paper clips and chewing gum. And who holds the minor premise that the prophets of the Bible were basically cranks, who wandered the streets homeless wearing sandwich boards declaring "The End is Near."
Whether anyone on this thread cares to acknowledge it or not, the above is an example of "lower criticism" a.k.a. “textual criticism.” And I, along with just about everyone else who posts on this forum, could cite abundant similar examples from V.P.W.'s work.
He didn't invent the method, nor did I of course. But anyone trying to argue on the Worldwide Web that the methodology that his research employed does not qualify as research – maybe because he or she thinks V.P.’s research was cr*p, and is willing to eliminate the connotation of credibility that the word “research” implies at the cost of throwing logic out the window, who knows? -- is merely in danger of exposing him- or herself as a crank.
Does the author of this essay really intend to throw out the research carried out by the entire Christian establishment that propounds inerrancy? Such as the Southern Baptist Convention, which has more than 16 million members and 42,000 churches? Or by the editors of “nearly all modern translations” of the Bible? Who use the exact same methodology in their research?
If so … uh well … all I can say is I hope you have good luck in all of your endeavors…
Evangelical Christians generally accept the findings of textual criticism, and nearly all modern translations, including the popular New International Version, work from a Greek New Testament based on modern textual criticism.
Since this means that the manuscript copies are not perfect, inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. For instance, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture.
Gee whiz. Them Chicago folks almost sound like mind-numbed PFAL grads...
***
Note to pawtucket: I have no argument with your deletion of my post that appeared subsequent to Penworks'. I understand why you deleted it. And not only for the obvious reason that Greasespot is your place. A lot of webmasters enforce the same kind of shill rule on their forums.
Of course, for my own records, I have saved screen shots of my posts and the responses. Not that they're of any use in updating my already-written-thing-that-I'm-not-supposed-to-mention-and-never-will-again, since in my view so far, no one has engaged me in a serious discussion of the root issues of my critique of the essay in question.
A point regarding the accurate use of technical terms: The word "ultradispensationalist" is not a pejorative. It applies to dispensationalists who believe the "oikonomia of the grace of god" began at some time later than the day of Pentecost. Bullinger held that the "oikonomia of the grace of God" began not at Pentecost, but at Acts 28:28 when "the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles."
Wierwille was not an ultradispensationalist. CES/STF still professes to be aligned with conventional dispensationalism, but they hold that all of Paul's letters except the prison epistles are tainted by Paul's latent Judaism. Without realizing it, much less understanding what they are doing, CES/STF promotes an ultradispensationalist hermaneutic.
A point regarding the accurate use of technical terms: The word "ultradispensationalist" is not a pejorative. It applies to dispensationalists who believe the "oikonomia of the grace of god" began at some time later than the day of Pentecost. Bullinger held that the "oikonomia of the grace of God" began not at Pentecost, but at Acts 28:28 when "the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles."
Wierwille was not an ultradispensationalist. CES/STF still professes to be aligned with conventional dispensationalism, but they hold that all of Paul's letters except the prison epistles are tainted by Paul's latent Judaism. Without realizing it, much less understanding what they are doing, CES/STF promotes an ultradispensationalist hermaneutic.
Love,
Steve
Thanks. . . I tried to post a link. . . . but, it didn't work. It is not necessarily a pejorative, but that all depends on who one is speaking with. Some believe ultra-dispensationalism leads to to things like belief in soul sleep, or annihilationism . . . even universalism where Satan himself is saved. Now to many here. . . . in ex-cult land some of these are not considered heresy, but to the church at large. . . . . different story.
You are correct . . . VP was not an ultra-dispensationalist, but he was heavily influenced by it.
H.A. Ironside wrote on the dangers of ultra-dispensationalism. Called it evil. All depends.
There is Acts 28:28. . . . . . Acts 13. . . Acts 9. . . . pick a point in Acts and divide.
I don't think you can avoid some sort of dispensationalism. . . . . it is impossible. . . . but, there can be a danger in . . . . well . . . . you know what? Never mind. . . . people can look into it or not.
Can someone here please explain why the tenent of biblical inerrancy is so important to Evangelical Christians and not important to so many other Christians?
BTW, Workman, the Baptist Convention you mentioned at one time in the 1980s kicked out any minister who would not sign a document stating that inerrancy was "the truth" or something like that.
Seems like an awful power play to me. That split in that church caused misery, broken friendships, and pain to many...I see nothing helpful to the Christian message of "love thy neighbor" in doing that, do you?
Can someone here please explain why the tenent of biblical inerrancy is so important to Evangelical Christians and not important to so many other Christians?
Define inerrancy? All I have gotten so far is VP's wackiness. . . . if it is that the bible is without error in the truth of the message it conveys. . . . . then why do you think it is so important?
If it all hinges on the accuracy of how many legs a grasshopper has.. . . for it to be truth. . . . then, I don't think we have a legitimate working definition of inerrancy.
Define inerrancy? All I have gotten so far is VP's wackiness. . . . if it is that the bible is without error in the truth of the message it conveys. . . . . then why do you think it is so important?
If it all hinges on the accuracy of how many legs a grasshopper has.. . . for it to be truth. . . . then, I don't think we have a legitimate working definition of inerrancy.
Okay, in my view, inerrancy of a document, which is made up of words, would mean it is without error or contradiction.
Perhaps what this discussion is getting at is that VPW's view of inerrancy is not what the general population of Evangelicals thinks. Is that what you're trying to say?
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.
Is this the view of most Evangelicals?
The Baptists I referred to in my previous post who did not sign the inerrancy "loyaly oath" that was shoved at them by the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s are still Christians. So there must be something about inerrancy that did not jive with them, but didn't prohibit them from still being Christians. I venture to say there are Christians in other denominations that don't buy into an error-free Bible, either.
I'm just trying to figure out why some Christians like those in TWI make such an issue out of it and defend it and others do not.
IT (Errency deal) is twis claim to fame,we are the only ones teaching the truth,
God is perfect the "word"is perfect.Twiers wear it like a badge of honor,our way or the highway,
Narrow minded?As we all know very know how narrow minded it is,and how wrong it is,God gave us freedom of will,twi made it into a dictorship,where,no one questions anything.
Can someone here please explain why the tenent of biblical inerrancy is so important to Evangelical Christians and not important to so many other Christians?
The shibboleth of "inerrancy" has a complex and fairly recent history. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the subject that can guide a person to primary sources if he isn't satisfied with the reliability of Wikipedia. After all, nobody claims inerrancy for THAT!
I believe that the Bible provides an objective standard (the words don't change in a particular copy depending on the observer or over time) for knowing what its writers believed when they were composing it. Several places in the Bible indicate that in the mouth (singular) of two or three witnesses (plural) shall a matter be established. I believe God can use pertinent parts of the Bible as an objective witness to confirm what He is teaching a person subjectively by way of His spirit. To focus on the written Word and ignore the Spirit leads to Pharasaism and legalism, as happenned with TWI. To focus on the Spirit and ignore the written Word leads to emotionalism and spiritualism, as happened with CES/STFI's adventures in personal prophecy on demand.
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 Bible may be a means through which God can communicate with an individual, but it is still a book, and as such, is subject to the weaknesses of the flesh. To mistake the Bible for all there is to God is to turn its study into a work of the flesh, which I believe Wierwille did and taught.
Okay, in my view, inerrancy of a document, which is made up of words, would mean it is without error or contradiction.
Perhaps what this discussion is getting at is that VPW's view of inerrancy is not what the general population of Evangelicals thinks. Is that what you're trying to say?
Is this the view of most Evangelicals?
I'm just trying to figure out why some Christians like those in TWI make such an issue out of it and defend it and others do not.
Hi,
I can't really speak for all evangelicals and it is not really a denomination. . . I can tell you I am in a love/dislike relationship with many of them. . . . . but, the church is rich and varied . . . . not everyone has the same strength. . . . or focus. . . . so, although Christians are unified around the same core doctrines . . . . around the Savior. . . . we don't all have the same theology. The church has unity, yet diversity, without compromising the gospel. In many ways the varied churches compliment each other.
Some denominations are missions minded, some teaching, some community, some worship. . . all Christians making up the body of Christ.
Now, Christians are unified around core doctrines . . . . when a group of people get together and deny all those core doctrines . . . what would that be? Would that make them Christian? Or, would that make them actually opposed to Christianity?
Sorry, I can't call TWI Christian with a straight face.
You have a very good handle on why VP and Wayfers have defended to the death their understanding of inerrancy. Control and the arrogance of perceived superior knowledge. . . . self-preservation and identity. Christians identify with Christ . . . . TWI identifies with their understanding of the bible. It has nothing to do with humbleness or holiness. . . . no matter how many times they use the words.
Not everyone who believes the bible to be inerrant believes that every word is perfect. One word is as good as another to convey the meaning . . . . . language is limited, imperfect. However, if scripture is inspired. . . . God not only designed us for language, but chose in part to communicate with us from it.
It is enough to give us the understanding needed. . . . . it is not a Koranic view of inspiration, but it is the sense of scripture that is scripture. Meaning, it is the message that is without error. . . . no translation of the bible has been so horrible that the gospel could not be understood from it. The gospel is without error, perfect, and true.
I believe God uses language to tell us what to think about Him, how to talk to Him, and then interacts with us so that we may know Him. Language is part of that. . . . . now, if God can use human language to speak about Himself. . . . we can understand it.. . . . inerrancy is not a dirty word . . . no matter how some use it.
Scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ. . . . it is adequate for the task. . . . Jesus Christ is to bring us to God. . . . if someone believes one is lacking in adequacy the other will follow.
God humbled Himself in Jesus Christ to reconcile us, to identify with us. . . . He condescends with human language to communicate that to us. Common, everyday words bring us to a knowledge of salvation.
You know what I think. . . . I believe it is God's humility that actually offends people.
Thank you everyone for addressing my question(s). I appreciate the time and efforts you put into your posts. All this discussion helps me rethink how to refine my thoughts on the issues...
You and I have both analyzed literature before . . . right? Take Jane Eyre for example. That is a great read, I must have read it 10 times at least. . . . but, without really delving into it . . . . it is just a pretty good story.
However, maybe the first time you look at it. . . . you catch some of the more obvious things like the names Bronte uses. Jane Eyre. . . . she was the heiress. . . . from the beginning you could catch a glimpse of how the story might unfold. If you were a bit familiar with English history, you might know that Eyre also holds a connotation of justice in forest law. So, you might get that she was the heiress who was going to get justice.
It might take a deeper look to catch some of the more subtle, but deeper points which really enlighten you to what Bronte was trying to convey. Understanding a bit about the times in which Bronte wrote. . . . how women were viewed and how she had to obscure a societal rebuke into a gothic/romance format to convey her meaning. . . . makes it more than a good read. . . it makes it a brilliant piece of lit. Perfect for what it is!
If, one walks the windswept moors near Bronte's home. . . . especially in the chilly late fall . . . with the setting sun stealing any warmth left from the day. . . . . the realities of Bronte's life and situation become even more pronounced. The sense of the times easier to feel.
The bible or scripture if you like. . . . is literature. . . . the subject matter God. Not only do the words convey something. . ... but, the subject matter is able to guide us Himself in understanding. The more we read and consider the times, the characters, the depth of story. . . . the more it fits together and is alive. It is obscured to be sure. . .. . similar to the depth of Jane Eyre. . . . but, there is an enlightening process.
We just have to be humble in our approach to it. . . . and let the process God designed unfold it. I don't think it is mystical. It is all in the heart with which we approach the scriptures. But, that is true of most things in life.
I don't know . . . it all makes perfect sense to me. The humanness of the biblical writers would not be a problem for God. . . . He is communicating with humans. The distinct human qualities of Jesus are not a problem either. . . . God is revealing Himself in Jesus to humans. Identifying Himself with us. None of it should be a problem for us. If He can disclose Himself in the person of Jesus. . . . human writers whom He has prepared as spokesmen. . . . . should not really be an issue.
God's humility in doing this reveals a reality about Him, a condescension, a humbleness, and a willingness to relate. God doesn't need the scriptures. . . . . we do.
I'm just trying to figure out why some Christians like those in TWI make such an issue out of it and defend it and others do not.
me too. and i cant help but assume that any effective figuring out of such things cannot happen without at least touching and handling the even hotter and more troubling aspects of it all...which is more than some have agreed to, or seem willing to want or allow. Has me wondering again if the most direct and unsanitized answers, whatever they may be, are not always the most appropriate for everyone, or for all occasions.
me too. and i cant help but assume that any effective figuring out of such things cannot happen without at least touching and handling the even hotter and more troubling aspects of it all...
Do you want to tell us what you think "the even hotter and more troubling aspects of it" are?
"The bible or scripture if you like. . . . is literature. . . . the subject matter God. Not only do the words convey something. . ... but, the subject matter is able to guide us Himself in understanding. The more we read and consider the times, the characters, the depth of story. . . . the more it fits together and is alive. It is obscured to be sure. . .. . similar to the depth of Jane Eyre. . . . but, there is an enlightening process."
What does that even mean? It either is inerrant or it isn't. . . . . you either believe it is or you don't. I have written what I believe about inerrancy ad nauseum . . . . even I am sick of reading it. However, it is articulated in my last few posts if you care to look at it. There is no "must" about my statements. . . . it is simply what I believe about God and the scriptures.
Please. . . . feel free to believe I have a screw loose. . . . . I am one sandwich short of a picnic basket . . . . out to lunch. . . . clueless. . . . one beer short of a six pack . . . . believe whatever YOU choose about the scriptures. . . . but, I have answered what I think. . . . given my reasons . . . and there is no "must" in my beliefs.
I never said you "had a screw loose" or were "out to lunch" or were "a couple fries short of a happy meal", or anything of the sort.
You said this:
"It either is inerrant or it isn't. . . . . you either believe it is or you don't"
See, this is the problem.
If something is a Palomino Pony, for example, it really makes no difference what I believe it is. It doesn't change reality one tiny bit. It still gallops and kicks up its hooves.
You believe it's inerrant. I don't. What does that really change? Nothing, as far as I can see. Unless, of course, we're talking about an organization, like The Way, whose beliefs on the matter had a direct effect on peoples' day to day lifestyle.
"If one little piece doesn't fit, the whole thing falls to pieces."
By that sort of reasoning, I would need to have a vested interest in making sure any contradictions or discrepancies are resolved.
Sorry----I don't subscribe to that train of thought anymore.
I never said you "had a screw loose" or were "out to lunch" or were "a couple fries short of a happy meal", or anything of the sort.
You said this:
"It either is inerrant or it isn't. . . . . you either believe it is or you don't"
See, this is the problem.
If something is a Palomino Pony, for example, it really makes no difference what I believe it is. It doesn't change reality one tiny bit. It still gallops and kicks up its hooves.
You believe it's inerrant. I don't. What does that really change? Nothing, as far as I can see. Unless, of course, we're talking about an organization, like The Way, whose beliefs on the matter had a direct effect on peoples' day to day lifestyle.
"If one little piece doesn't fit, the whole thing falls to pieces."
By that sort of reasoning, I have a vested interest in making sure any contradictions or discrepancies are resolved.
Sorry----I don't subscribe to that train of thought anymore.
Waysider,
You can think however you like. . . . . but, please do me the courtesy of reading what I actually wrote if you would like to question me and try to make a point. I never wrote that if one little piece doesn't fit, the whole thing falls apart. That is not MY view of inerrancy . . . . that comes from a cult. That is not a working definition of inerrancy in my opinion and others as well. . . . . . . I just read a great book on inerrancy by Norm Geisler.
If you are so concerned about inerrancy. . . . pick up the phone and call him. He is a very very nice man. Still vertical the last time I checked. Extremely engaging. He wrote a whole book on the topic. That is a conversation I would pay to hear.
What VP espoused was a Koranic view of scripture. . . . He held that the bible is the primary and perfect revelation of God. I believe the scriptures are to point us to a person, Jesus Christ . . . . who is the revelation of God . . . no actually. . . God in the flesh. I made that clear in my last few posts. I have made the point here before that TWI's understanding of Jesus in some ways more closely resembles that of Islam than Christianity.
I do not believe I said it mattered what you believe about inerrancy. What is your point? Who are you arguing with? Me? Since you are addressing me . . . . I will assume so . . . . did I say it mattered what you believe?
I believe the bible to be true. The message it conveys to us about God to be the correct message . . . . the gospel, the good news, the Savior . . . . that is the perfect and true message. I have explained why I believe God's use of imperfect language and imperfect men to express Himself and point to Jesus. . . . is just fine. I don't have a problem with it . . . or what you see as contradictions. I have a different understanding than you. OBVIOUSLY.
But, please don't project TWI's understanding of inerrancy onto me . . . . it is not my own. I would hope Waysider, that you don't actually take the application of a term like inerrancy, that you learned in a nasty anti-christian cult. . . . . from a controlling and manipulative madman . . . . . and use that as a basis for understanding inerrancy. Because, if you do. . . . your train of thought might be off the tracks.
What VP espoused was a Koranic view of scripture. . . . He held that the bible is the primary and perfect revelation of God. I believe the scriptures are to point us to a person, Jesus Christ . . . . who is the revelation of God . . . no actually. . . God in the flesh. I made that clear in my last few posts. I have made the point here before that TWI's understanding of Jesus in some ways more closely resembles that of Islam than Christianity.
Just to add Waysider,
I believe many things about TWI and VP . . . not a single one of them is good. That is why I post here. AND, I do NOT equate TWI with Christianity and have no issue with making the distinction.
In truth, I actually think TWI practiced a completely different faith than Christianity. . . . which is why it is so difficult for ex-way to find a church home. It is not that they go to church and secretly know that Christians are wrong or misguided. . . . but tolerate it to fellowship with them . . . one, that is not true fellowship . . . and two, it is that ex-twi are coming to a Christian church from a different faith!!
All the verbiage sounds the same, but it has a completely different meaning or application. That is my opinion. . . . after struggling with fitting in at church for years. I finally realized. . . . it was not them . . . it was ME who had the problem . . . .Me, the one who learned her faith from a cult run by a pervert!
Here is a condensed piece on the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. .. .
A SHORT STATEMENT
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
This affirms that it is the MESSAGE that is without error and true. . . . that the God of the Christian scriptures is God. . . . His authority is infallible. . .. what it tells us about Jesus, faith, creation, and God's witness to Himself in the scripture is true.
I'm sure you guys know that this concept of inerrancy is hardly unique to TWI, Weirwille or even Bullinger. My (Catholic-oriented) NAB translation contains a long discussion on the "Origin, Inspiration and History of the Bible". Among other things, it says that "sacred scripture" is inerrant and divinely inspired and translated (I suppose they're referring to the Latin Vulgate). It also claims that "Protestants themselves recognized many serious defects in the King James translation".
Interestingly, it contains 72 books, including six apocryphal books of the OT. As you might suspect, the Vatican believes that the canonization process was divinely inspired as well.
Just FYI, there are a few discussions of inerrancy on bible.org. (No one there talks, or even seems to know anything about TWI.)
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
Workman
Maybe a real-world example will help illustrate my point.
Let's say that I decide to execute a biblical research project about Jesus Christ's ministry as a prophet, which is an office I assume he has based upon internal evidence from the Bible. Specifically, what he said about himself in Matthew 13:57 and Mark 6:4, and what Peter said about him in Acts 3:22-26. And I adopt as the underlying minor premise for my research (my major premise being that the Bible is the Word of God) that prophets pronounce "woes."
First, to present evidence in support of my minor premise, I review everywhere that the words "woe unto" occur from Isaiah through Malachi. And I see that the phrase occurs 27 times -- in Isaiah 3:9,11; 5:8,11,18,20,21,22; 10:1; 24:16; 29:15; 45:9,10; Jeremiah 4:13; 6:4; 13:27; 22:13; 48:1; 50:27; Lamentations 5:16; Ezekiel 13:3; 16:23; Hosea 7:13; Amos 5:18; Habakkuk 2:15,19; Zephaniah 2:5.
Then I look up everywhere Jesus is recorded saying "woe unto," and I discover 28 instances in the Gospels -- Matthew 11:21(twice); 18:7; 23:13,14,15,16,23,25,27,29; 24:19; 26:24; Luke 6:24,25(twice),26; 10:13(twice); 22:42,43,44,46,47,52; 17:1; 21:23; 22:22.
Lo and behold I have not only provided evidence toward proving my thesis, I have also constructed a framework within which I can do further biblical research into the ministry of a prophet. And a framework that provides plenty of valuable material for exegetical exposition to boot.
It is hard -- IMPOSSIBLE actually -- to argue that I am not carrying out research, even if you disagree with my major premise that the Bible is the Word of God. Especially when my research presents evidence that someone can turn around and make use of as fodder, who holds to the major premise that the Bible is a hodge-podge of Bronze and Iron Age Hebrew literature that is held together with paper clips and chewing gum. And who holds the minor premise that the prophets of the Bible were basically cranks, who wandered the streets homeless wearing sandwich boards declaring "The End is Near."
Whether anyone on this thread cares to acknowledge it or not, the above is an example of "lower criticism" a.k.a. “textual criticism.” And I, along with just about everyone else who posts on this forum, could cite abundant similar examples from V.P.W.'s work.
He didn't invent the method, nor did I of course. But anyone trying to argue on the Worldwide Web that the methodology that his research employed does not qualify as research – maybe because he or she thinks V.P.’s research was cr*p, and is willing to eliminate the connotation of credibility that the word “research” implies at the cost of throwing logic out the window, who knows? -- is merely in danger of exposing him- or herself as a crank.
Does the author of this essay really intend to throw out the research carried out by the entire Christian establishment that propounds inerrancy? Such as the Southern Baptist Convention, which has more than 16 million members and 42,000 churches? Or by the editors of “nearly all modern translations” of the Bible? Who use the exact same methodology in their research?
If so … uh well … all I can say is I hope you have good luck in all of your endeavors…
Gee whiz. Them Chicago folks almost sound like mind-numbed PFAL grads...
***
Note to pawtucket: I have no argument with your deletion of my post that appeared subsequent to Penworks'. I understand why you deleted it. And not only for the obvious reason that Greasespot is your place. A lot of webmasters enforce the same kind of shill rule on their forums.
Of course, for my own records, I have saved screen shots of my posts and the responses. Not that they're of any use in updating my already-written-thing-that-I'm-not-supposed-to-mention-and-never-will-again, since in my view so far, no one has engaged me in a serious discussion of the root issues of my critique of the essay in question.
Edited by WorkmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
A point regarding the accurate use of technical terms: The word "ultradispensationalist" is not a pejorative. It applies to dispensationalists who believe the "oikonomia of the grace of god" began at some time later than the day of Pentecost. Bullinger held that the "oikonomia of the grace of God" began not at Pentecost, but at Acts 28:28 when "the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles."
Wierwille was not an ultradispensationalist. CES/STF still professes to be aligned with conventional dispensationalism, but they hold that all of Paul's letters except the prison epistles are tainted by Paul's latent Judaism. Without realizing it, much less understanding what they are doing, CES/STF promotes an ultradispensationalist hermaneutic.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Thanks. . . I tried to post a link. . . . but, it didn't work. It is not necessarily a pejorative, but that all depends on who one is speaking with. Some believe ultra-dispensationalism leads to to things like belief in soul sleep, or annihilationism . . . even universalism where Satan himself is saved. Now to many here. . . . in ex-cult land some of these are not considered heresy, but to the church at large. . . . . different story.
You are correct . . . VP was not an ultra-dispensationalist, but he was heavily influenced by it.
H.A. Ironside wrote on the dangers of ultra-dispensationalism. Called it evil. All depends.
There is Acts 28:28. . . . . . Acts 13. . . Acts 9. . . . pick a point in Acts and divide.
I don't think you can avoid some sort of dispensationalism. . . . . it is impossible. . . . but, there can be a danger in . . . . well . . . . you know what? Never mind. . . . people can look into it or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Can someone here please explain why the tenent of biblical inerrancy is so important to Evangelical Christians and not important to so many other Christians?
BTW, Workman, the Baptist Convention you mentioned at one time in the 1980s kicked out any minister who would not sign a document stating that inerrancy was "the truth" or something like that.
Seems like an awful power play to me. That split in that church caused misery, broken friendships, and pain to many...I see nothing helpful to the Christian message of "love thy neighbor" in doing that, do you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Define inerrancy? All I have gotten so far is VP's wackiness. . . . if it is that the bible is without error in the truth of the message it conveys. . . . . then why do you think it is so important?
If it all hinges on the accuracy of how many legs a grasshopper has.. . . for it to be truth. . . . then, I don't think we have a legitimate working definition of inerrancy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Okay, in my view, inerrancy of a document, which is made up of words, would mean it is without error or contradiction.
Perhaps what this discussion is getting at is that VPW's view of inerrancy is not what the general population of Evangelicals thinks. Is that what you're trying to say?
Here's what the Baptist's web site says about scripture at: http://www.sbc.net/a...asicbeliefs.asp
The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.
Is this the view of most Evangelicals?
The Baptists I referred to in my previous post who did not sign the inerrancy "loyaly oath" that was shoved at them by the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s are still Christians. So there must be something about inerrancy that did not jive with them, but didn't prohibit them from still being Christians.
I venture to say there are Christians in other denominations that don't buy into an error-free Bible, either.
I'm just trying to figure out why some Christians like those in TWI make such an issue out of it and defend it and others do not.
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
IT (Errency deal) is twis claim to fame,we are the only ones teaching the truth,
God is perfect the "word"is perfect.Twiers wear it like a badge of honor,our way or the highway,
Narrow minded?As we all know very know how narrow minded it is,and how wrong it is,God gave us freedom of will,twi made it into a dictorship,where,no one questions anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The shibboleth of "inerrancy" has a complex and fairly recent history. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the subject that can guide a person to primary sources if he isn't satisfied with the reliability of Wikipedia. After all, nobody claims inerrancy for THAT!
I believe that the Bible provides an objective standard (the words don't change in a particular copy depending on the observer or over time) for knowing what its writers believed when they were composing it. Several places in the Bible indicate that in the mouth (singular) of two or three witnesses (plural) shall a matter be established. I believe God can use pertinent parts of the Bible as an objective witness to confirm what He is teaching a person subjectively by way of His spirit. To focus on the written Word and ignore the Spirit leads to Pharasaism and legalism, as happenned with TWI. To focus on the Spirit and ignore the written Word leads to emotionalism and spiritualism, as happened with CES/STFI's adventures in personal prophecy on demand.
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 Bible may be a means through which God can communicate with an individual, but it is still a book, and as such, is subject to the weaknesses of the flesh. To mistake the Bible for all there is to God is to turn its study into a work of the flesh, which I believe Wierwille did and taught.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Excellent points, Steve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi,
I can't really speak for all evangelicals and it is not really a denomination. . . I can tell you I am in a love/dislike relationship with many of them. . . . . but, the church is rich and varied . . . . not everyone has the same strength. . . . or focus. . . . so, although Christians are unified around the same core doctrines . . . . around the Savior. . . . we don't all have the same theology. The church has unity, yet diversity, without compromising the gospel. In many ways the varied churches compliment each other.
Some denominations are missions minded, some teaching, some community, some worship. . . all Christians making up the body of Christ.
Now, Christians are unified around core doctrines . . . . when a group of people get together and deny all those core doctrines . . . what would that be? Would that make them Christian? Or, would that make them actually opposed to Christianity?
Sorry, I can't call TWI Christian with a straight face.
You have a very good handle on why VP and Wayfers have defended to the death their understanding of inerrancy. Control and the arrogance of perceived superior knowledge. . . . self-preservation and identity. Christians identify with Christ . . . . TWI identifies with their understanding of the bible. It has nothing to do with humbleness or holiness. . . . no matter how many times they use the words.
Not everyone who believes the bible to be inerrant believes that every word is perfect. One word is as good as another to convey the meaning . . . . . language is limited, imperfect. However, if scripture is inspired. . . . God not only designed us for language, but chose in part to communicate with us from it.
It is enough to give us the understanding needed. . . . . it is not a Koranic view of inspiration, but it is the sense of scripture that is scripture. Meaning, it is the message that is without error. . . . no translation of the bible has been so horrible that the gospel could not be understood from it. The gospel is without error, perfect, and true.
I believe God uses language to tell us what to think about Him, how to talk to Him, and then interacts with us so that we may know Him. Language is part of that. . . . . now, if God can use human language to speak about Himself. . . . we can understand it.. . . . inerrancy is not a dirty word . . . no matter how some use it.
Scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ. . . . it is adequate for the task. . . . Jesus Christ is to bring us to God. . . . if someone believes one is lacking in adequacy the other will follow.
God humbled Himself in Jesus Christ to reconcile us, to identify with us. . . . He condescends with human language to communicate that to us. Common, everyday words bring us to a knowledge of salvation.
You know what I think. . . . I believe it is God's humility that actually offends people.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Thank you everyone for addressing my question(s). I appreciate the time and efforts you put into your posts. All this discussion helps me rethink how to refine my thoughts on the issues...
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Charlene,
You and I have both analyzed literature before . . . right? Take Jane Eyre for example. That is a great read, I must have read it 10 times at least. . . . but, without really delving into it . . . . it is just a pretty good story.
However, maybe the first time you look at it. . . . you catch some of the more obvious things like the names Bronte uses. Jane Eyre. . . . she was the heiress. . . . from the beginning you could catch a glimpse of how the story might unfold. If you were a bit familiar with English history, you might know that Eyre also holds a connotation of justice in forest law. So, you might get that she was the heiress who was going to get justice.
It might take a deeper look to catch some of the more subtle, but deeper points which really enlighten you to what Bronte was trying to convey. Understanding a bit about the times in which Bronte wrote. . . . how women were viewed and how she had to obscure a societal rebuke into a gothic/romance format to convey her meaning. . . . makes it more than a good read. . . it makes it a brilliant piece of lit. Perfect for what it is!
If, one walks the windswept moors near Bronte's home. . . . especially in the chilly late fall . . . with the setting sun stealing any warmth left from the day. . . . . the realities of Bronte's life and situation become even more pronounced. The sense of the times easier to feel.
The bible or scripture if you like. . . . is literature. . . . the subject matter God. Not only do the words convey something. . ... but, the subject matter is able to guide us Himself in understanding. The more we read and consider the times, the characters, the depth of story. . . . the more it fits together and is alive. It is obscured to be sure. . .. . similar to the depth of Jane Eyre. . . . but, there is an enlightening process.
We just have to be humble in our approach to it. . . . and let the process God designed unfold it. I don't think it is mystical. It is all in the heart with which we approach the scriptures. But, that is true of most things in life.
I don't know . . . it all makes perfect sense to me. The humanness of the biblical writers would not be a problem for God. . . . He is communicating with humans. The distinct human qualities of Jesus are not a problem either. . . . God is revealing Himself in Jesus to humans. Identifying Himself with us. None of it should be a problem for us. If He can disclose Himself in the person of Jesus. . . . human writers whom He has prepared as spokesmen. . . . . should not really be an issue.
God's humility in doing this reveals a reality about Him, a condescension, a humbleness, and a willingness to relate. God doesn't need the scriptures. . . . . we do.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Do you want to tell us what you think "the even hotter and more troubling aspects of it" are?
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
of course i do
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"The bible or scripture if you like. . . . is literature. . . . the subject matter God. Not only do the words convey something. . ... but, the subject matter is able to guide us Himself in understanding. The more we read and consider the times, the characters, the depth of story. . . . the more it fits together and is alive. It is obscured to be sure. . .. . similar to the depth of Jane Eyre. . . . but, there is an enlightening process."
So then why must it also be "inerrant"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
What does that even mean? It either is inerrant or it isn't. . . . . you either believe it is or you don't. I have written what I believe about inerrancy ad nauseum . . . . even I am sick of reading it. However, it is articulated in my last few posts if you care to look at it. There is no "must" about my statements. . . . it is simply what I believe about God and the scriptures.
Please. . . . feel free to believe I have a screw loose. . . . . I am one sandwich short of a picnic basket . . . . out to lunch. . . . clueless. . . . one beer short of a six pack . . . . believe whatever YOU choose about the scriptures. . . . but, I have answered what I think. . . . given my reasons . . . and there is no "must" in my beliefs.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I never said you "had a screw loose" or were "out to lunch" or were "a couple fries short of a happy meal", or anything of the sort.
You said this:
"It either is inerrant or it isn't. . . . . you either believe it is or you don't"
See, this is the problem.
If something is a Palomino Pony, for example, it really makes no difference what I believe it is. It doesn't change reality one tiny bit. It still gallops and kicks up its hooves.
You believe it's inerrant. I don't. What does that really change? Nothing, as far as I can see. Unless, of course, we're talking about an organization, like The Way, whose beliefs on the matter had a direct effect on peoples' day to day lifestyle.
"If one little piece doesn't fit, the whole thing falls to pieces."
By that sort of reasoning, I would need to have a vested interest in making sure any contradictions or discrepancies are resolved.
Sorry----I don't subscribe to that train of thought anymore.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Waysider,
You can think however you like. . . . . but, please do me the courtesy of reading what I actually wrote if you would like to question me and try to make a point. I never wrote that if one little piece doesn't fit, the whole thing falls apart. That is not MY view of inerrancy . . . . that comes from a cult. That is not a working definition of inerrancy in my opinion and others as well. . . . . . . I just read a great book on inerrancy by Norm Geisler.
If you are so concerned about inerrancy. . . . pick up the phone and call him. He is a very very nice man. Still vertical the last time I checked. Extremely engaging. He wrote a whole book on the topic. That is a conversation I would pay to hear.
What VP espoused was a Koranic view of scripture. . . . He held that the bible is the primary and perfect revelation of God. I believe the scriptures are to point us to a person, Jesus Christ . . . . who is the revelation of God . . . no actually. . . God in the flesh. I made that clear in my last few posts. I have made the point here before that TWI's understanding of Jesus in some ways more closely resembles that of Islam than Christianity.
I do not believe I said it mattered what you believe about inerrancy. What is your point? Who are you arguing with? Me? Since you are addressing me . . . . I will assume so . . . . did I say it mattered what you believe?
I believe the bible to be true. The message it conveys to us about God to be the correct message . . . . the gospel, the good news, the Savior . . . . that is the perfect and true message. I have explained why I believe God's use of imperfect language and imperfect men to express Himself and point to Jesus. . . . is just fine. I don't have a problem with it . . . or what you see as contradictions. I have a different understanding than you. OBVIOUSLY.
But, please don't project TWI's understanding of inerrancy onto me . . . . it is not my own. I would hope Waysider, that you don't actually take the application of a term like inerrancy, that you learned in a nasty anti-christian cult. . . . . from a controlling and manipulative madman . . . . . and use that as a basis for understanding inerrancy. Because, if you do. . . . your train of thought might be off the tracks.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Just to add Waysider,
I believe many things about TWI and VP . . . not a single one of them is good. That is why I post here. AND, I do NOT equate TWI with Christianity and have no issue with making the distinction.
In truth, I actually think TWI practiced a completely different faith than Christianity. . . . which is why it is so difficult for ex-way to find a church home. It is not that they go to church and secretly know that Christians are wrong or misguided. . . . but tolerate it to fellowship with them . . . one, that is not true fellowship . . . and two, it is that ex-twi are coming to a Christian church from a different faith!!
All the verbiage sounds the same, but it has a completely different meaning or application. That is my opinion. . . . after struggling with fitting in at church for years. I finally realized. . . . it was not them . . . it was ME who had the problem . . . .Me, the one who learned her faith from a cult run by a pervert!
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Here is a condensed piece on the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. .. .
A SHORT STATEMENT
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
This affirms that it is the MESSAGE that is without error and true. . . . that the God of the Christian scriptures is God. . . . His authority is infallible. . .. what it tells us about Jesus, faith, creation, and God's witness to Himself in the scripture is true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I'm sure you guys know that this concept of inerrancy is hardly unique to TWI, Weirwille or even Bullinger. My (Catholic-oriented) NAB translation contains a long discussion on the "Origin, Inspiration and History of the Bible". Among other things, it says that "sacred scripture" is inerrant and divinely inspired and translated (I suppose they're referring to the Latin Vulgate). It also claims that "Protestants themselves recognized many serious defects in the King James translation".
Interestingly, it contains 72 books, including six apocryphal books of the OT. As you might suspect, the Vatican believes that the canonization process was divinely inspired as well.
Just FYI, there are a few discussions of inerrancy on bible.org. (No one there talks, or even seems to know anything about TWI.)
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wasn't it you who stated, in a previous post, that you didn't believe the story of Jonah and the whale was literally true?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Yep, I was just throwing that out there.
Link 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.