Do liberal Christians have a leg to stand on?

Plan 9 · Sep 11, 2003

Brimshack said:
Yes, but all sorts of interesting theological assumptions and assorted dogmas were asserted in his posts, so I think he is under the impression that Jesus meant somethign else when he commanded people to love. One might wonder if he was putting other people's words on par with those of his blessed savior. But that couldn't be. Surely, there must be some text in which JESUS himself said exactly what Sean said he said.

Hey Jillars, did you bring any snack money. I'm all out and Karl ate all the red licorice.

*Nine reaches into her uniform tunic pocket and pulls out a wad of currency*

I'll buy, Brimshack. After all, I can always replicate more.

Brimshack · Sep 11, 2003

Oooh! Cool.

hay can I get a large soda?

Plan 9 · Sep 11, 2003

Brimshack said:
Oooh! Cool.

…hay can I get a large soda?

Of course. Get one for everyone; the popcorn will make us all thirsty. Oh yes, and get some more red licorice, if you'd like.

Not only has Sean not found your verse for you, he has not refuted Jill's remarks, with which I agree. The autographs may have indeed been inerrant, but we do not possess them and we must always interpret scripture with the both the writer's and readers' culture firmly in mind.
Sean has also neglected to explain to me if we should be taking the parables of Jesus literally and if it would change their morals if we did.

In light of these things, I think you should get us very large sodas indeed and anything else which happens to strike your fancy.

Brimshack · Sep 11, 2003

OK, but has anyone seen a bathroom around here?

oh MAN!

Plan 9 · Sep 11, 2003

Brimshack said:
OK, but has anyone seen a bathroom around here?

…oh MAN!

On my arrival, I immediately reconfigured my CP to provide a 'head' option. Did you neglect to do likewise, Brimshack?
*all the group's members shake their heads sadly at Brimshack's oversight*

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 11, 2003

Badfish said:
Wrong, Paul wrote to Timothy: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16,17).

IOW, the Bible is the plenary, verbally inspired, infallible, Word of God.

Hold your horses, sub-optimal piscine....

Can you explain exactly how you get from "given by inspiration of God" to "plenary, verbally inspired, infallible, Word of God", because I don't see it. Thing is, I'd agree with what Paul wrote to Timothy there - it sums up my attitude to Scripture pretty well, and yet I don't see any need to promote inerrancy, or verbal inspiration.

As far as I can make out, you use "IOW" not to mean "in other words", but rather "in my personal interpretation".

Plan 9 · Sep 11, 2003

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
As far as I can make out, you use "IOW" not to mean "in other words", but rather "in my personal interpretation".

Karl, you must be mistaken; that's what we do, remember?

I feel certain that Sean can explain this stretch in reasoning...and the answers to all our other questions raised by his posts, if we only give him enough time.

More popcorn, Karl? Perhaps you'd like to feed some to Sean's horses, which I feel confident are literal?

OldBadfish · Sep 11, 2003

In the Gospel of John, Jesus is recorded as referring to scripture as being fixed, presumably because it comes from God:

John 10:35

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..."

God speaking through the mouth of David:

Acts 4:24-25:

"...Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?"

Inspiration of the Holy Spirit

1 Corinthians 2:9-13:

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: ...Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

The "word of God," not of men:

1 Thesalonians 2:13:

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

2 Timothy 3:16:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

2 Peter 1:20-21:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Brimshack, the premise is that all the scriptures are God breathed, whether Christ actually spoke them, or if men wrote as if they were moved by the holy spirit.

OldBadfish · Sep 11, 2003

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Hold your horses, sub-optimal piscine....

Can you explain exactly how you get from "given by inspiration of God" to "plenary, verbally inspired, infallible, Word of God", because I don't see it. Thing is, I'd agree with what Paul wrote to Timothy there - it sums up my attitude to Scripture pretty well, and yet I don't see any need to promote inerrancy, or verbal inspiration.

As far as I can make out, you use "IOW" not to mean "in other words", but rather "in my personal interpretation".

See the scriptures above, if you don't believe the scriptures then we don't have anything to talk about, unless you care to prove that the men who wrote the bible were not inspired by Christ or the Spirit.

OldBadfish · Sep 12, 2003

JillLars said:
Actually badfish, the question was, "where does God say the bible is inerrant" You have given us an example of where paul says it is inerrant, but Paul is not God, that is his opinion on the bible. Are there any verses where Jesus says, my apostles are going to right about me, and my works, and everything they right will be completely true and represent everything that I am about. I enjoy the bible, but I think it has been twisted through translations. I believe that people have taken things out of context, and fit today's society, today's values and norms, people once used the bible to justify slavery? Why is that no longer happening? Now they use it to justify poor treatment of other minority groups. The interpretations of the bible change with the culture, which makes it very hard to determine whose interpretation is the correct one.

Gods word doesn't change, it doesn't matter what culture. I already showed where inspired writers said the bible was inspired, and since its good for reproof, that indiicates its innerant.
And since I don't see any scriptures from you to back your assertions, I'll assume they don't exist and claim that liberals don't have a leg to stand on. Sure we got lots of speculation and theology, but where is your proof?

Until I see concrete God given proof that his word is errant, I will contend that you don't have a leg to stand on.

Other than theology, secular or otherwise, you got nothing, sorry.

If you guys want to play, then lets see some scripture, otherwise why bother?

And if you bombard me with theology and philosophy I will give you this:

Col 2:8
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ".

I would suggest studying the bible the way God intended, before reading or study pray for the Spirit to help you NOT be discerned, leading to confusion.

OldBadfish · Sep 12, 2003

Actually badfish, the question was, "where does God say the bible is inerrant"

Actually Jill the statement of the OP says that I believe liberals don't have a leg to stand on, not where does God say the bible is inerrant, but if you studied the bible, and found scripture to contradict what God has inspired men to write, by all means present it, otherwise, I will have to disregard your posts.

OldBadfish · Sep 12, 2003

/me grabs some popcorn......

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 12, 2003

Badfish said:
See the scriptures above, if you don't believe the scriptures then we don't have anything to talk about, unless you care to prove that the men who wrote the bible were not inspired by Christ or the Spirit.

Instead of posting more quotes with little commentary, and none of it substantiated, perhaps you might address the actual point - that you leapt from "inspired" and "profitable" to "inerrant" and "verbal". I see no justification for that leap.

You also seem to jump in this post from "not inerrant" to "don't believe". This is another illogical jump. For the record, I believe the scriptures are inspired, but are not inerrant.

burrow_owl · Sep 12, 2003

Badifish: using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is considered fallacious in every other field of inquiry, so I don't see why it shouldn't here (bracketing some interesting stuff about Hermeneutics and circularity by some Heidegger-inspired theologians...).

If we can't use the Bible, then, are we stuck? No, cuz there's another source of knowledge: the perfection of God's nature. So we ask if the writings of the Bible square with the perfection of God's nature, both as a whole and book-to-book.

This leads me to the conclusion that much of what Paul wrote was too tainted by human error, and not inspired by God, since I find these passages way too determined by the conventional thought of the era (see generally: women shouldn't talk in church, homosexuality is "unnatural" (whatever that means), etc.).

Your only other option is to take the Catholic Church route, and argue that apostolic transmission is the guarantor of Biblical inerrancy. Otherwise you're with us liberal Xians methodologically (interrogating the Bible for consistency with God's nature; Evangelical theologians use precisely this method to argue for inerrancy, so it doesn't overdetermine a liberal result) or you're stuck arguing in circular (illogical) fashion.

Plan 9 · Sep 12, 2003

Popcorn, burrow_owl?

burrow_owl · Sep 12, 2003

Until the PM rolls around, only coffee. precious, precious coffee is what we wants.

Plan 9 · Sep 12, 2003

burrow_owl said:
Until the PM rolls around, only coffee. precious, precious coffee is what we wants.

Here, I brought a thermos of coffee.

I can see I'm going to need more; my post is long forgotten. *sighs*

OldBadfish · Sep 12, 2003

burrow_owl said:
Badifish: using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is considered fallacious in every other field of inquiry, so I don't see why it shouldn't here (bracketing some interesting stuff about Hermeneutics and circularity by some Heidegger-inspired theologians...).

You only see it as circular.

<snip> cuz there's another source of knowledge: the perfection of God's nature. So we ask if the writings of the Bible square with the perfection of God's nature, both as a whole and book-to-book.

The explain HOW you know Gods nature without biblical and spiritual inspiration.

This leads me to the conclusion that much of what Paul wrote was too tainted by human error, and not inspired by God, since I find these passages way too determined by the conventional thought of the era (see generally: women shouldn't talk in church, homosexuality is "unnatural" (whatever that means), etc.).

Very common and classic example of picking and choosing, again unless you have proof, you are spreading a fallacy, I see nothing of value in this statement.

Your only other option is to take the Catholic Church route, and argue that apostolic transmission is the guarantor of Biblical inerrancy. Otherwise you're with us liberal Xians methodologically (interrogating the Bible for consistency with God's nature; Evangelical theologians use precisely this method to argue for inerrancy, so it doesn't overdetermine a liberal result) or you're stuck arguing in circular (illogical) fashion.

And you call me circular? Your reasoning thus far is very unsupported and without using the bible demonstrate satisfactorily Gods nature...Thank you very much.

OldBadfish · Sep 12, 2003

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Instead of posting more quotes with little commentary, and none of it substantiated, perhaps you might address the actual point - that you leapt from "inspired" and "profitable" to "inerrant" and "verbal". I see no justification for that leap.

I do, if God is capable of inspiring scripture why would it be errant? Man you guys like to minimize God.

For the record, I believe the scriptures are inspired, but are not inerrant.

On what basis? I will ask again for proof, otherwise, your position holds no preponderance.

burrow_owl · Sep 12, 2003

"You only see it as circular."

*sigh*

this is from wikipedia:

"Circular Argument

A Circular argument is one which assumes the very thing it aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which is neither very persuasive nor logically valid. For example:

I am not lying. Since I'm not lying, I must be telling the truth. While at first glance this statements appear logical, it does nothing to prove the truthfulness of the speaker. In seeking to prove his own truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that he is telling the truth."

Sound familiar? This is your illogic: The Bible is inerrant because it's the word of God. And I know it's the word of God because it's inerrant and says it's the word of God.

Do. you. understand? To use Biblical scripture to try to prove its inerrancy, you're already assuming its inerrancy.

But your de-emphasis of logic in lieu of arational emotion and faith is part of an unbroken chain from Tacitus straight through to your post, so at there's pedigree to the arationality.

Do liberal Christians have a leg to stand on?

Absolutely Elsewhere

Well-Known Member

Absolutely Elsewhere

Well-Known Member

Absolutely Elsewhere

Senior Veteran

Absolutely Elsewhere

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Absolutely Elsewhere

Senior Contributor

Absolutely Elsewhere

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Similar threads