What is CF's view of scripture

DD2008 · May 28, 2009

The inerrancy of scripture is absolutley vital to the christian faith. I have noticed at CF that only the Reformed, Baptists, LCMS Lutherans, some non-denoms, and some pentacostals believe scripture is true.

The rest have argued that it isn't trustworthy, including all major protestant denominations.

This site needs a definitive statement on scripture. I'm noticing about 75% or more of posters I see in the theology area don't believe scripture is trustworthy.

JustAsIam77 · May 28, 2009

DD2008 said:
The inerrancy of scripture is absolutley vital to the christian faith. I have noticed at CF that only the Reformed, Baptists, LCMS Lutherans, some non-denoms, and some pentacostals believe scripture is true.

The rest have argued that it isn't trustworthy, including all major protestant denominations.

This site needs a definitive statement on scripture. I'm noticing about 75% or more of posters I see in the theology area don't believe scripture is trustworthy.

I feel your frustration.

Without belief in the inerrancy of scripture...?

I agree. It is vital.

green wolverine · May 28, 2009

DD2008 said:
The inerrancy of scripture is absolutley vital to the christian faith. I have noticed at CF that only the Reformed, Baptists, LCMS Lutherans, some non-denoms, and some pentacostals believe scripture is true.

The rest have argued that it isn't trustworthy, including all major protestant denominations.

This site needs a definitive statement on scripture. I'm noticing about 75% or more of posters I see in the theology area don't believe scripture is trustworthy.

It's a huge problem. What I'd like to know is if you don't believe it's true, how do you decide which verses to go by? Do you use a black magic marker and black out the verses you don't like?? Seems like you'd end up with no divine revelation.....

JustAsIam77 · May 28, 2009

green wolverine said:
It's a huge problem. What I'd like to know is if you don't believe it's true, how do you decide which verses to go by? Do you use a black magic marker and black out the verses you don't like?? Seems like you'd end up with no divine revelation.....

Precisely.

When I came to CF I was befuddled by this subject. Still am.

LiturgyInDMinor · May 29, 2009

It doesn't make sense to me...it's almost as if some people believe that God just told the prophets and apostles and others to just write stuff and make it sound good. I don't get it....
the Word is from God so why wouldn't it be trustworthy 100%.

Irrkunst · Jun 4, 2009

The problem is that the bible was written a couple hundred years after the crucifixion. By that time the church had become very involved in the political situation of the Roman Empire. They decided which books to keep and which they didn't like and rewrote some others to meet their needs. So you need to look at the text of the bible in its historic, social, and political context.

Since that time the bible has been translated and retranslated many times. Some Hebrew and Greek words have mistranslated and some words don't have exact translations in English. In fact, Jesus was not even his name! If Jesus' own name can be mistranslated, anything can be mistranslated.

All of this leads some of us to the conclusion that the important thing is to read the narrative that is behind the words, not just the words themselves. Look at what Jesus was doing and the purpose behind his ministry. You need to focus on his deeds as well as the words that were written about him.

DD2008 · Jun 4, 2009

Al Bundy said:
The problem is that the bible was written a couple hundred years after the crucifixion.

This is incorrect. The Old Testament was completed 400 years before Christ and was quoted often by Him and the Apostles throughout the New Testament.

The last writing of the New Testament was completed by the Apostle John around 90 AD, that closed the canon.

Many New Testament writings were already received by the Church while the apostles were still teaching and the apostles do quote and refer to each others writings in scripture.

The Roman Church did not make the canon of scripture, their canon is actually wrong and includes uninspired apocryphal writings. They had to deliberate because there are unsaved leaders in that denomination that are enemies of the truth so they tried to get canonical books taken out and non canonical books placed in..etc. St. Jerome (the translator of the Vulgate, a bible scholar, and a believer) supported the 66 book canon, not the 73 book one.

The Scriptures are inspired by God and received and recognized by the Church (true believers). They were written by Prophets and Apostles under the inspiration of God.

Ephesians 2:19-20 ESV
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

ReformedChapin · Jun 4, 2009

DD2008 said:
The inerrancy of scripture is absolutley vital to the christian faith. I have noticed at CF that only the Reformed, Baptists, LCMS Lutherans, some non-denoms, and some pentacostals believe scripture is true.

The rest have argued that it isn't trustworthy, including all major protestant denominations.

This site needs a definitive statement on scripture. I'm noticing about 75% or more of posters I see in the theology area don't believe scripture is trustworthy.

We shouldn't sell out Catholics and our Orthodox brothers. Yes, they do hold to some heretodox doctrines but they still believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

As far as I know this site doesn't have an official position for the inerrancy of scripture. I think this is intentional, CF does not want to alienate others.

DD2008 · Jun 4, 2009

ReformedChapin said:
We shouldn't sell out Catholics and our Orthodox brothers. Yes, they do hold to some heretodox doctrines but they still believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

As far as I know this site doesn't have an official position for the inerrancy of scripture. I think this is intentional, CF does not want to alienate others.

True. At least they do claim to believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

arunma · Jun 4, 2009

DD2008 said:
The inerrancy of scripture is absolutley vital to the christian faith. I have noticed at CF that only the Reformed, Baptists, LCMS Lutherans, some non-denoms, and some pentacostals believe scripture is true.

The rest have argued that it isn't trustworthy, including all major protestant denominations.

This site needs a definitive statement on scripture. I'm noticing about 75% or more of posters I see in the theology area don't believe scripture is trustworthy.

My friend, I used to have the same problem with CF. I've never been to a liberal church before, and it was on Internet forums like this where I learned about the existence of Christians and Christian churches that don't believe in the inerrency of Scripture. I suppose at some point, I stopped regarding CF as a Christian ministry and more of a public space where I might happen to run into like-minded believers (such as most of you on SR). I agree that CF's lack of a position on Scripture is most disconcerting. I guess the most we can do with that 75% of the posters is love them and tell them the truth as graciously as possible.

Al Bundy said:
The problem is that the bible was written a couple hundred years after the crucifixion. By that time the church had become very involved in the political situation of the Roman Empire. They decided which books to keep and which they didn't like and rewrote some others to meet their needs. So you need to look at the text of the bible in its historic, social, and political context.

Al, this is simply not correct, as DD2008 has explained. Christian tradition places the Revelation of John as being written circa 90 AD. And a small fragment of the Gospel of John has been is scientifically (as opposed to historically) proven to have been written prior to this date. The Bible is not pseudepigraphical. I strongly urge you to check your history before you entrust your soul to these ideas.

Al Bundy said:
Since that time the bible has been translated and retranslated many times. Some Hebrew and Greek words have mistranslated and some words don't have exact translations in English.

This is a non-issue. Hebrew and Greek scholars are ubiquitous. In theory, you could even become one if you're willing to spend a few years in school. If you have any disagreement with teaching based on a particular passage of Scripture, you can always look up a wealth of information from academic sources.

Al Bundy said:
In fact, Jesus was not even his name! If Jesus' own name can be mistranslated, anything can be mistranslated.

I'm not sure that logically follows. "Jesus" in Greek is iesous. In Latin it became Iesus. In English it became Jesus. This doesn't even have to do with translation, but with transliteration.

OHCAC · Jun 13, 2009

DD2008 said:
The inerrancy of scripture is absolutley vital to the christian faith.

I would suggest that is statement is false for a number of reasons, not least because the Christian faith existed prior to the New Testament being written ergo one could technically have the Christian faith with no New Testament. The only event which is is absolutley vital to the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. Inerrancy is not essential to the faith.

Let's us now look at inerrancy in a little more detail; the doctrine of inerrancy states simply that it is only the original autographs which are inerrant. It is also accepted that these original autographs no longer exist. This means that the whole inerrancy debate is somewhat pointless in that ultimately you are arguing that documents which no longer exist were inerrant.

ReformedChapin · Jun 13, 2009

OHCAC said:
I would suggest that is statement is false for a number of reasons, not least because the Christian faith existed prior to the New Testament being written ergo one could technically have the Christian faith with no New Testament. The only event which is is absolutley vital to the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. Inerrancy is not essential to the faith.

Let's us now look at inerrancy in a little more detail; the doctrine of inerrancy states simply that it is only the original autographs which are inerrant. It is also accepted that these original autographs no longer exist. This means that the whole inerrancy debate is somewhat pointless in that ultimately you are arguing that documents which no longer exist were inerrant.

Your argument is fallacious. Your conclusions are based on the notion that because we cannot review the original manuscripts that we cannot know if we obtain the original word of God. The problem with this statement is that the several manuscripts found repeatedly have shown a consistency of over 99% and the one percent inconsistency only shows small discrepancies which affect no major doctrines.

Secondly, the scriptures themselves represent the original teachings in the bible. Just because the teachings weren't written until after that doesn't imply that they are different nor does it void the authority of the scriptures themselves.

OHCAC · Jun 13, 2009

ReformedChapin said:
The problem with this statement is that the several manuscripts found repeatedly have shown a consistency of over 99% and the one percent inconsistency only shows small discrepancies which affect no major doctrines.

This may very well be the case for the New Testament however it is a very different picture for the Hebrew Bible. There are different editions of books and the whole concept of an original autograph is impossible to defend.

ReformedChapin · Jun 13, 2009

OHCAC said:
This may very well be the case for the New Testament however it is a very different picture for the Hebrew Bible. There are different editions of books and the whole concept of an original autograph is impossible to defend.

The OT cannon had been a standard for years even before the NT writers. What are you talking about?

LiturgyInDMinor · Jun 13, 2009

To all:

If you hold to reformed theology you hold to the absolute inerrancy of scripture!
If you debate against this idea then you are NOT of reformed theology!
Why are you here? Isn't there an FSG for this sort of thing...it's getting ridiculous!

Thanks for listening.

desmalia · Jun 13, 2009

DD2008 said:
The inerrancy of scripture is absolutley vital to the christian faith. I have noticed at CF that only the Reformed, Baptists, LCMS Lutherans, some non-denoms, and some pentacostals believe scripture is true.

The rest have argued that it isn't trustworthy, including all major protestant denominations.

This site needs a definitive statement on scripture. I'm noticing about 75% or more of posters I see in the theology area don't believe scripture is trustworthy.

I totally agree and it's something I've been frustrated with since joining CF as well. Lots of other good points made in this thread as well.

I think another thing that often gets overlooked is that we are so incredibly blessed with the freedom and ability to read, study and explore the Scriptures. It is something we should not ignore or take lightly. We also live in an age of information (much of it harmful and deceptive) and communication, which makes it all the more vital that we hold to the solid foundation God has provided for us so that we are not swept away into all sorts of false doctrines.

JustAsIam77 · Jun 14, 2009

arunma said:
My friend, I used to have the same problem with CF. I've never been to a liberal church before, and it was on Internet forums like this where I learned about the existence of Christians and Christian churches that don't believe in the inerrency of Scripture. I suppose at some point, I stopped regarding CF as a Christian ministry and more of a public space where I might happen to run into like-minded believers (such as most of you on SR). I agree that CF's lack of a position on Scripture is most disconcerting. I guess the most we can do with that 75% of the posters is love them and tell them the truth as graciously as possible.

I agree. I was stunned with the number of Christians that don't agree with the inerrancy of scripture when I came aboard here at CF.

I believed it to be a basic and fundamental element of Christianity.

It's been an eye opening experience to say the least. Not in a good way.

OHCAC · Jun 14, 2009

ReformedChapin said:
The OT cannon had been a standard for years even before the NT writers. What are you talking about?

I am afraid that whilst this may be a popular view within some evangelical and Reformed groups it is in fact incorrect. I would refer you to James VanderKam's article "Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls" which is available to read online. Do check out The Canon Debate edited by Lee McDonald and James Sanders and also The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible by Eugene Ulrich. But this is in someway to confuse the issue, what we find within second Temple Judaism is that whilst certain books were held to be authoritative this did not mean that the texts of these books were set. There are two simple examples; the first is found in the Pentateuch and the second in the prophets.

Exodus
There are three primary textual families; (1) Masoretic Text or MT, (2) Septuagint or LXX, and (3) Samaritan Pentateuch or SP. Of these the text of the MT, LXX and SP do not equate with one another. At Qumran manuscripts were discovered that supported each of these three textual streams, the most important being 4QpaleoExod^m which is substantively the SP minus the theological changes made by the Samaritans and which demonstrates that in early Judaism two books of Exodus were in circulation; one which was similar to the MT & LXX and the other similar to the SP.

This means that it is incorrect to state that there existed an original text of Exodus, rather there is a pluriformity of texts, or multiple literary editions. As such the theory of an original autograph is very difficult, if not impossible, to square with the textual evidence.

Jeremiah
The LXX version of Jeremiah and the MT version are quite different, the former is far shorter than the latter and some chapters are in a different order. At Qumran there are four manuscripts that are important; 4QJer^b and 4QJer^d which support the LXX and 4QJer^a and 4QJer^c which support the MT. This implies that in early Judaism two, substantially different, books of Jeremiah were in circulation. Again this undermines the theory of an original autograph.

What is also important here is to keep in mind that the writers of the New Testament quoted the LXX and the Alexandrian Jews used this as their Scripture.

The "canon" of the Hebrew Bible was still an open issue during the NT period and there is evidence that the Jews did not settle this question until around 200 C.E. What is certain however is summed up here by VanderKam:

As nearly as we can tell, there was no canon of scripture in Second Temple Judaism. That is, before 70 CE, no authoritative body of which we know drew up a list of books that alone were regarded as supremely authoritative, a list from which none could be subtracted and to which none could be added.

OHCAC · Jun 14, 2009

NoRaptureBaptist said:
If you hold to reformed theology you hold to the absolute inerrancy of scripture! If you debate against this idea then you are NOT of reformed theology!

You are painting a false dichotomy. I hold to Reformed theology and accept the errancy of scripture.

ReformedChapin · Jun 14, 2009

OHCAC said:
I am afraid that whilst this may be a popular view within some evangelical and Reformed groups it is in fact incorrect. I would refer you to James VanderKam's article "Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls" which is available to read online. Do check out The Canon Debate edited by Lee McDonald and James Sanders and also The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible by Eugene Ulrich. But this is in someway to confuse the issue, what we find within second Temple Judaism is that whilst certain books were held to be authoritative this did not mean that the texts of these books were set. There are two simple examples; the first is found in the Pentateuch and the second in the prophets.

Exodus
There are three primary textual families; (1) Masoretic Text or MT, (2) Septuagint or LXX, and (3) Samaritan Pentateuch or SP. Of these the text of the MT, LXX and SP do not equate with one another. At Qumran manuscripts were discovered that supported each of these three textual streams, the most important being 4QpaleoExod^m which is substantively the SP minus the theological changes made by the Samaritans and which demonstrates that in early Judaism two books of Exodus were in circulation; one which was similar to the MT & LXX and the other similar to the SP.

This means that it is incorrect to state that there existed an original text of Exodus, rather there is a pluriformity of texts, or multiple literary editions. As such the theory of an original autograph is very difficult, if not impossible, to square with the textual evidence.

Jeremiah
The LXX version of Jeremiah and the MT version are quite different, the former is far shorter than the latter and some chapters are in a different order. At Qumran there are four manuscripts that are important; 4QJer^b and 4QJer^d which support the LXX and 4QJer^a and 4QJer^c which support the MT. This implies that in early Judaism two, substantially different, books of Jeremiah were in circulation. Again this undermines the theory of an original autograph.

What is also important here is to keep in mind that the writers of the New Testament quoted the LXX and the Alexandrian Jews used this as their Scripture.

The "canon" of the Hebrew Bible was still an open issue during the NT period and there is evidence that the Jews did not settle this question until around 200 C.E. What is certain however is summed up here by VanderKam:

As nearly as we can tell, there was no canon of scripture in Second Temple Judaism. That is, before 70 CE, no authoritative body of which we know drew up a list of books that alone were regarded as supremely authoritative, a list from which none could be subtracted and to which none could be added.

Please take your liberal garbage somewhere else.

Bye.

What is CF's view of scripture

Well-Known Member

Veritas Liberabit Vos

to God be the glory!

Veritas Liberabit Vos

Celtic Rite Old Catholic Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chapin = Guatemalan

Well-Known Member

Flaming Calvinist

OHCAC

Guest

Chapin = Guatemalan

OHCAC

Guest

Chapin = Guatemalan

Celtic Rite Old Catholic Church

sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays

Veritas Liberabit Vos

OHCAC

Guest

OHCAC

Guest

Chapin = Guatemalan

Similar threads