Comments on: Why I Am Not an Inerrantist—Even though I Am (or Vice Versa) http://pursiful.com/2009/11/why-i-am-not-an-inerrantist%e2%80%94even-though-i-am-or-vice-versa/ Darrell Pursiful's blog Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:01:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Darrell Pursiful http://pursiful.com/2009/11/why-i-am-not-an-inerrantist%e2%80%94even-though-i-am-or-vice-versa/comment-page-1/#comment-19895 Darrell Pursiful Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:09:49 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=2290#comment-19895 Thanks, Mitchell, and welcome! Thanks, Mitchell, and welcome!

]]> By: Mitchell Powell http://pursiful.com/2009/11/why-i-am-not-an-inerrantist%e2%80%94even-though-i-am-or-vice-versa/comment-page-1/#comment-19888 Mitchell Powell Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:30:44 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=2290#comment-19888 Wow. That's an excellent and balanced look at the issues of inerrancy. You've really hit the nail on the head here. In particular, I loved the quote from G.K. Chesterton about the fact that a fence post can only stay the same through continual change. It reminded me of Jude 3 -- ". . .earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." And why do we need to earnestly contend for it? Because it was not "once delivered" in a static way. We've got to keep repainting it; and that's the only way to keep it the same. As someone who identifies very strongly with the inerrancy of scripture, it was great to see someone point out its difficulties in a form that is not a pro- or anti- polemic. Wow. That’s an excellent and balanced look at the issues of inerrancy. You’ve really hit the nail on the head here. In particular, I loved the quote from G.K. Chesterton about the fact that a fence post can only stay the same through continual change. It reminded me of Jude 3 — “. . .earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” And why do we need to earnestly contend for it? Because it was not “once delivered” in a static way. We’ve got to keep repainting it; and that’s the only way to keep it the same. As someone who identifies very strongly with the inerrancy of scripture, it was great to see someone point out its difficulties in a form that is not a pro- or anti- polemic.

]]> By: Defining Inerrancy Yet Again http://pursiful.com/2009/11/why-i-am-not-an-inerrantist%e2%80%94even-though-i-am-or-vice-versa/comment-page-1/#comment-19823 Defining Inerrancy Yet Again Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:49:08 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=2290#comment-19823 [...] challenging questions” is precisely what Darrell Pursiful did in a speech Why I Am Not an Inerrantist—Even Though I Am (or Vice Versa).  I found it easily the most helpful reasonably short article on the topic I’ve [...] [...] challenging questions” is precisely what Darrell Pursiful did in a speech Why I Am Not an Inerrantist—Even Though I Am (or Vice Versa).  I found it easily the most helpful reasonably short article on the topic I’ve [...]

]]> By: mikelioso http://pursiful.com/2009/11/why-i-am-not-an-inerrantist%e2%80%94even-though-i-am-or-vice-versa/comment-page-1/#comment-19743 mikelioso Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:08:24 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=2290#comment-19743 I would say the Bibles authority rest on this; you have no idea what Jesus thought or was like, or Moses, David, Joseph, or any other figure from the Bible apart from the Bible. It's my position that if you had one of these folks with you, that they would be better to get information concerning them than from the Bible. People that put the Bible on the highest pedestal forget that while Paul was alive, no one would turn him away because they had a letter from him and so wouldn't need to here his inferior testimony. The Bible counts second in authority to the people it describes, be it Jesus, Moses, or God. Now it seems that a lot of the discussion on the inerrancy of the Bible rest on its being "the Words of God". If a statement is the word of God then it's true. I think if a statement is true then it is the word of God. I say this because we have no way of knowing if a person presents us with a statement that God inspired them. We have to test if the words are true first, then we know they are God's. We can't first test that they are God's then know they are true. If we accept the words as true and of God without testing them then it must be because an authority as good as truth has spoken for them. Who is that? Our Bible collection was selected by a number of people and committees. Did these people have special powers to speak on behalf of God? How did that happen? Is only on selecting works for the faithful community that they spoke with the authority of God or on their other practices as well? Ignorance is no great sin. Knowledge must be sought and is not all laying out in plain site. I'm sure Jesus believed that the world was around 4,000 years old and tress proceeded animals in the ocean, and birds came before animals on the land. Why would he believe differently? it would, I suppose, take an intelligence far out side the human to make all the discoveries of 2000 years of science in a couple of decades. And there is no reason to believe God would let him know any more than he let the author of Genesis know. But when the truth is known, to hold on to ignorance transforms it into a lie. Bart Ehrman lost his faith because his faith was based on lies. That is why I feel it is so important for the Christian community to reject the foolishness of those like the Peace Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. If this is allowed to define Christianity then no Christlike person could ever consent to being Christian. I would say the Bibles authority rest on this; you have no idea what Jesus thought or was like, or Moses, David, Joseph, or any other figure from the Bible apart from the Bible. It’s my position that if you had one of these folks with you, that they would be better to get information concerning them than from the Bible. People that put the Bible on the highest pedestal forget that while Paul was alive, no one would turn him away because they had a letter from him and so wouldn’t need to here his inferior testimony. The Bible counts second in authority to the people it describes, be it Jesus, Moses, or God.

Now it seems that a lot of the discussion on the inerrancy of the Bible rest on its being “the Words of God”. If a statement is the word of God then it’s true. I think if a statement is true then it is the word of God. I say this because we have no way of knowing if a person presents us with a statement that God inspired them. We have to test if the words are true first, then we know they are God’s. We can’t first test that they are God’s then know they are true. If we accept the words as true and of God without testing them then it must be because an authority as good as truth has spoken for them. Who is that?

Our Bible collection was selected by a number of people and committees. Did these people have special powers to speak on behalf of God? How did that happen? Is only on selecting works for the faithful community that they spoke with the authority of God or on their other practices as well?

Ignorance is no great sin. Knowledge must be sought and is not all laying out in plain site. I’m sure Jesus believed that the world was around 4,000 years old and tress proceeded animals in the ocean, and birds came before animals on the land. Why would he believe differently? it would, I suppose, take an intelligence far out side the human to make all the discoveries of 2000 years of science in a couple of decades. And there is no reason to believe God would let him know any more than he let the author of Genesis know. But when the truth is known, to hold on to ignorance transforms it into a lie. Bart Ehrman lost his faith because his faith was based on lies. That is why I feel it is so important for the Christian community to reject the foolishness of those like the Peace Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. If this is allowed to define Christianity then no Christlike person could ever consent to being Christian.

]]> By: Brian Small http://pursiful.com/2009/11/why-i-am-not-an-inerrantist%e2%80%94even-though-i-am-or-vice-versa/comment-page-1/#comment-19741 Brian Small Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:17:11 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=2290#comment-19741 Can the word "inerrancy" be qualified so much that the term loses it meaning? I suggest this is what the Chicago Statement does. Can the word “inerrancy” be qualified so much that the term loses it meaning? I suggest this is what the Chicago Statement does.

]]> By: Eclectic Christian http://pursiful.com/2009/11/why-i-am-not-an-inerrantist%e2%80%94even-though-i-am-or-vice-versa/comment-page-1/#comment-19737 Eclectic Christian Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:12:47 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=2290#comment-19737 Thank you for this very good summary of the topic. Thank you for this very good summary of the topic.

]]>