- Aug 20, 2019
- 10,985
- 12,068
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
This post is primarily for those who believe the scriptures (original documents) are an inerrant, perfect representation of historical events. Of course, anyone may comment. (This post may need to be moved, but I figured the topic would be controversial for some so I placed it here).
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that only 50% of the scriptures are (in some sense) historically accurate. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. Assuming this were true, how would this affect they way you think about the scriptures?
I get the impression from some, who argue for the inerrancy of the scriptures, that if something within the scriptures were not historically accurate, then we could not trust that Jesus Christ is Son of God, whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. But, one does not necessarily follow from the other.
Logically speaking: there is a possible world where Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who is incarnated, dies and rises again, and yet there are no scriptures in the sense that we know them today. Someone might balk and say, "But, how would we know about it?" Well, any number of ways. A different set of writings, perhaps? The point being that the scriptures are not that which makes his death and resurrection efficacious for salvation. They are simply a means to knowing about Christ, as fallible as they might be.
Again, imagine a community of 1st generation Christians, a community that possesses no copy of the scriptures, they find a hermit, they proclaim the gospel in her hearing, and she comes to faith. What does she lack? She has faith in the resurrected Son of God, she has a community within which to worship and learn and grow, so what does she lack not having an opportunity to read the scriptures?
Would you give up the faith if you knew some of the scriptures were not historically accurate and yet you knew that Jesus is in fact the living, resurrected Son of God through whom salvation is given? I dare say you would have no good reason to do so. Thoughts? Comments?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that only 50% of the scriptures are (in some sense) historically accurate. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. Assuming this were true, how would this affect they way you think about the scriptures?
I get the impression from some, who argue for the inerrancy of the scriptures, that if something within the scriptures were not historically accurate, then we could not trust that Jesus Christ is Son of God, whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. But, one does not necessarily follow from the other.
Logically speaking: there is a possible world where Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who is incarnated, dies and rises again, and yet there are no scriptures in the sense that we know them today. Someone might balk and say, "But, how would we know about it?" Well, any number of ways. A different set of writings, perhaps? The point being that the scriptures are not that which makes his death and resurrection efficacious for salvation. They are simply a means to knowing about Christ, as fallible as they might be.
Again, imagine a community of 1st generation Christians, a community that possesses no copy of the scriptures, they find a hermit, they proclaim the gospel in her hearing, and she comes to faith. What does she lack? She has faith in the resurrected Son of God, she has a community within which to worship and learn and grow, so what does she lack not having an opportunity to read the scriptures?
Would you give up the faith if you knew some of the scriptures were not historically accurate and yet you knew that Jesus is in fact the living, resurrected Son of God through whom salvation is given? I dare say you would have no good reason to do so. Thoughts? Comments?
