Henry Neufeld's blog on Inerrancy

[RC_NewProtestants]

I just happened on this blog because of the inerrancy question on the discussion and debate section. This link is to his articles that he has key word linked to inerrancy. I am pretty impressed, see what you think. He puts a lot of thoughts out there that I really agree with and he has stated them well.
http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?cat=18

Just thought of this now I remember this is a former student or friend of Alden Thompson. So he is probably a former Adventist.

Here is a section:

Fourth, this results in the possibility of error at any stage of the transmission other than the thought in God’s own mind. The possibility of error applies to everything that is communicated because everything communicated goes through a human mind, is then copied by a human mind, and is later interpreted and applied by a human mind–all imperfectly.


Inerrantists of my acquaintance accept that interpreters are all fallible, and certainly fallible in faith and practice as well as history and science. They accept that copyists may have made errors, though they would maintain those are few and of small import. I simply extend that one more step. Any human mind that transmits the word of God will do so in a limited way, i.e. imperfectly.
So why read and depend on the Bible? Well, first, I don’t “depend on” the Bible as such. But generally this question tends to make me crazy. I depend on potentially fallible materials in my daily life. I am a fallible person who makes imperfect decisions, many of which I now know, from the eminence of 50 years (!) to have been really, really bad. I deal with imperfection. It is important to me that God is perfect, but I see no need for any human to be perfect.


Now the Bible is a core element in my reception of God’s word, but by itself it is words on paper. I must bring all elements of God’s revelation together in order to have the faintest prayer of a chance of getting anything right. And that “prayer” of a chance is precisely what I do have. For me the Bible comes in a Spirit-filled community and is guaranteed to me not by the factual content of the text, on which I may change my mind in the next several seconds, but rather on the Spirit and the community with all the gifts and wisdom that God can give us. Even so I know that we will be in error from time to time.


But even more importantly, I think we spend most of our times in the questionable areas, things on which we can quite reasonably disagree, while most of our actual problems come in areas on which we know what is right, and yet aren’t doing it. But again, that’s another point.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

John T wanted to continue the discussion on inerrancy/verbal inspiration. So I will encourage him to use this thread. It would be good if he read the link mentioned above and this one on the history of the SDA church with regard to inspiration by Sakae Kubo From Adventist Perspective. Naturally it also includes stuff about Ellen White, but I think that is one of the helpful contributions of Adventism that they have considered the nature of prophetic error and inconsistency where as most other traditional Christians have avoided thinking about those problems, rather they will say any error is simply a copiest mistake.
http://www.adventistperspective.com/sakae_kubo.shtml

 

[JohnT]

I read from Adventist Perspective what you requested. Here is my take. The quotes from the article are in quotes, my remarks follow.

In 1886 Ellen White stated that men are inspired, not the words of the Bible. They are imbued with thoughts but not words or expressions

I have no doubt she said, but the issue should be, “on what basis of authority did she say that, and why did she make a pronouncement on something that she knew nothing about, such as original languages, nor the transmission of texts of the Bible?

1. Ellen White used material from other authors not only as convenient sources describing what she saw in vision but to provide information not seen in vision.

OK, we all know she plagiarized. What else is new?

2. Ellen White was influenced and shaped by late nineteenth-century culture including its health reformers and authors.

Again, a known fact, and from those “convenient sources” she copied some of their medical quackery. What else is new?

3 Ellen White was not inerrant. She imported "errors of fact and some of the misconceptions of her generation" when she incorporated material from contemporary source

Simply put, EGW was neither a scholar, nor an editor. We could accurately call those "errors of fact and some of the misconceptions of her generation" that she imported, examples of her being careless as an author.

I am not trying to run down EGW in the above comments. I simply am re phrasing the author of the article. However, that does not get to the heart of the issue.

The heart of the issue has nothing to do with what EGW or anyone else says. They are mere humans. (Yeah, I know she is a SDA prophet, but for the sake of the discussion, that is irrelevant.) I believe that what the Bible, its authors and of course the Apostles and Jesus say must be the sole criterion for evaluation.

Therefore, I believe that it is counter productive to discuss what inerrancy means to the SDAs in particular if we are not able to discuss the meaning and scope of inerrancy in Scripture in general. Doing it the other way places the cart before the horse, for it is Scripture, not Adventism that came first.

Does that make sense to all?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

So is that all you got from the article? only EGW stuff? I don't think you are paying attention to the correct things. Here are some sections to think about:

If the histories of denominations are analogous, the Adventist Church stands at the threshold of a crucial period in its history. Adventist theologians are focusing on the meaning of inspiration and the use of the higher critical method.1 The same thing took place in the Missouri Synod before the Concordia Seminary in St. Louis broke away and the church split into two factions. These same issues are threatening to divide the Southern Baptist Convention. Whether the Adventist church will split over this issue, as did the Missouri Synod, has yet to be determined.

So first let us not assume that Christianity is in agreement that verbal inspiration is the only possibility.

A. 1844-1900
The General Conference action of November 16, 1883, clearly acknowledged that a prophet is not preserved from "grammatical imperfections" and, therefore, revisions of a prophet's work are not out of order. In other words, thoughts and not words are imparted by God. Obviously, our early church leaders believed that inspired writing was not inerrant.

History is that we have not held to verbal inspiration.

George L. Butler, when he was president of the General Conference, published a series of ten articles on inspiration, beginning January 8, 1884.8 He proposed that there were different degrees of inspiration in the Bible.9 Moses and Christ, the latter much superior to the former, stood at the pinnacle of inspiration because "the subject matter they present is more important, the light revealed is clearer, and their words more impressive and profound."10 He was careful to state that he respected all Scripture in varying degrees, that he did not question any statement anywhere, and that he accepted all of the books of the Bible as inspired.


What is important in Butler's presentation is that he clearly recognized the difference between the various books in the Bible. "The law of Moses and the discourses of Christ stand higher in our estimation than the book of Ruth, the Proverbs, or the Song of Solomon."11 He also believed in the different modes of revelation and inspiration and was very perceptive in his analysis of inspiration as it relates to the different types of biblical literature.12 His articles deserve more serious study than they have been afforded.
In 1886 Ellen White stated that men are inspired, not the words of the Bible. They are imbued with thoughts but not words or expressions.13

An idea very similar to Martin Luther. Plus we see hear that like most things in Adventism Ellen White was not the instigator. Today she is seen by many as the authority for something but in practically every element she did not produce the ideas.

While some church leaders held the traditional nineteenth century view of inspiration, there was a strong undercurrent of support for a new ultraconservative view through the first four decades of the twentieth century. During this period a significant shift in the church's view of inspiration is apparent. The mainstream view during the previous period was that inspiration did not mean inerrancy. However, the mainstream view in this period was inerrancy. According to Haloviak the first decade of the twentieth century was characterized by those who held to a more literalistic view of Scripture, probably influenced by Prescott. What Daniells said at the 1919 Bible Conference confirms this. "We have made a wonderful change in nineteen years, Brother Prescott. Fifteen years ago we could not have talked what we are talking here today."18 Yet the fact that the Conference reports show there was fear that what was being discussed would be leaked out belies the fact that a substantial lasting change in the doctrine had taken place.

So the Adventist church has fluctuated and for a time was predominated by verbal inspiration folks.

In opposition to this view one Adventist scholar, Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, makes this bold statement: " . . . all claims that the Bible makes on any subject-theology, history, science, chronology, numbers, etc.-are absolutely trustworthy and dependable (2 Pet. 1:16-21)."48 Similar claims are made by other ultraconservative writers who believe in inerrancy.49 While Koranteng-Pipim has stated his position clearly, others who seem to agree with him are not willing to state it as candidly as he. As one reads the responses to Thompson's book, one gets the feeling that other members of the Adventist Theological Society believe in an inerrant Bible without admitting it.50

John might find Pipim's view's more to his liking. I find that an absurd assumption. Because the Bible very clearly progresses through differing understanding as the books progress.

James Smart argues that the inerrant view claims the "divine validation of a system of doctrine and practice."54 In this way, the infallibility they claim for Scripture becomes transferred directly to the doctrines and practices they espouse. Smart sets forth the ultimate case against inerrancy:
The theory of literal infallibility, far from being an expression of genuine respect for Scripture, is open to the accusation of being the means whereby, subtly, under a semblance of extreme respect, an established order of religion makes use of Scripture for its own purposes and subordinates it to itself, thereby removing from God's word in Scripture its power to revolutionize the existing order.55
This view of inspiration controls, subordinates, and imprisons God and Scripture to itself.

This is such an important point because it is really what much of this comes down to, and why there is such a fear among fundamentalist of the Historical critical method of Higher Criticism. Which ultimately is what this all comes down to.

​

 

[JohnT]

I DID read that other stuff, and I addressed it with this statement :

Therefore, I believe that it is counter productive to discuss what inerrancy means to the SDAs in particular if we are not able to discuss the meaning and scope of inerrancy in Scripture in general. Doing it the other way places the cart before the horse, for it is Scripture, not Adventism that came first.

I am aware of the things in LCMS and in other places, but the author places the emphasis on inerrancy in too narrow a scope--what it means to Adventists. NO group can arbitrarily determine the meaning of the term "inerrancy" as it relates to itself without distorting the meaning of the word entirely.

Just as the term "Scripture" does not change relative to an Adventist meaning, likewise, the term "inerrancy" does not change, nor should not change the essential meaning of the term if it is in the hands of one cult, church or confession. Doing so makes nonsense of the word, and it is with that concept I disagree, and why I rephrased the discussion to go for a universally accepted definition first. That way, we are all on the same page.

Make sense?

BTW since this is a SDA forum, making this open, to determine the universal meaning first, MAY be considered a FV. But I think that is the best, and most logical way to proceed The Mods may need to move this elsewhere.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Here is the definition that I thinks represents the theological use of the term inerrancy:

DEFINITION
The term inerrancy is both a view and a condition regarding the status of the original documents contained in the Holy Bible with respect to their inspiration. P. D. Feinberg defines inerrancy as, "[T]he view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences" (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1987, p. 142). Feinberg's summary is quite similar to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy." Another definition for this concept is, "[T]he total truthfulness of a source of information that contains no mistakes; the word is 19th-century, but the belief it expresses is as old as Christianity" (New Dictionary of Theology, 1988, p. 337). Unfortunately, the original writings are not available to us today. The assurance of the accuracy of the Holy Scriptures was, is and will be a topic of many debates because the concept is connected with the inspiration, transmission, translation, and interpretation of the Bible.
http://www.concernedchristians.org/nocomparison_bible5.php

The author who is a theologian and a Professor seemed to me to be using the term as it has theologically been used.

Here is an article on the debate:

Third, there are the evangelical opponents of biblical inerrancy. Though a distinct minority, they happen to include some of the best known and most capable of the scholars evangelicalism has produced: F. F. Bruce, G. C. Berkouwer, David A. Hubbard, G. E. Ladd, and others. Because it is controversial, their theology of biblical inspiration has been slow in surfacing, but the outlines of it are becoming quite clear now. Their study of the Bible and theology has convinced them that the assumption of scientific precision and accuracy, such as the term inerrancy connotes, is inappropriate when it comes to biblical realities. Not only do the critical phenomena discredit it, but the Bible itself does not place high value on precision but often subordinates it to other ends. In addition, these evangelicals have come to question what the Bible claims for itself. Contesting Warfield's theory of the perfect errorlessness of the original biblical autographs, they feel the biblical inspiration is a much less formal and more practical affair. It relates to the sufficiency of Scripture through the Spirit of God to nourish and instruct the church for its faith and life, and not to an abstract perfection. A new evangelical doctrine of biblical inspiration is emerging, and just because it calls the time-honored inerrancy assumption into question it has come under heavy criticism from the militant side. It is now a question of whether this group of evangelicals is going to be able to develop a strong and affirmative concept of biblical authority (it is not enough to be against inerrancy) such as can gain the consent and support of the evangelical constituency long used to stricter formulations.1
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1978/v35-1-tabletalk1.htm

 

[JohnT]

Here is the definition that I thinks represents the theological use of the term inerrancy:
The author who is a theologian and a Professor seemed to me to be using the term as it has theologically been used.

Here is an article on the debate:

Third, there are the evangelical opponents of biblical inerrancy. Though a distinct minority, they happen to include some of the best known and most capable of the scholars evangelicalism has produced: F. F. Bruce, G. C. Berkouwer, David A. Hubbard, G. E. Ladd, and others. Because it is controversial, their theology of biblical inspiration has been slow in surfacing, but the outlines of it are becoming quite clear now.

The word "THIRD" presumes that there is a first and a second. I just nailed a Mormon on CARM for failure to reference the entire article, just as you did. His post was deceitful because he took a tertiary meaning, and made it appear as a primary definition.

Because you hyperlinked the source, deception is not your primary purpose. Nevertheless, from Pinnock's article, you take an admitted "distinct minority" and make it seem as if it is the whole shooting match. It ain't.

What it appears to me is that you are setting up an "appeal to authority" contest. It is almost like little boys bragging "My old man can beat up your old man". It solves nothing, and engenders heat, but not light. That is why I think it best to discover what the original writers, and Jesus said about Scripture, then go from there.

It is my position that prior to the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis, inerrancy was assumed, but not well thought out. It took R. A. Torrey and eight others to flesh out the concept of fundamentalism, or the fundamentals of the Christian faith in 1909, and Harold Lindsell's Battle for the Bible in 1979 to fully flesh out the concept. Together they form the basis of the fully inerrant position, popular with most Evangelical, and me.

As the term refers to the historic, five fundamentals of the church:

1. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, without error in its original form.
2. Christ was born of a virgin.
3. The miracles of Christ are historical events.
4. Christ's Crucifixion is substitutionary atonement (He willingly accepted the judgment for our sins).
5. Bodily resurrection, and the visible, personal second coming of Jesus Christ.

I am unapologetically fundamentalist. However as the connotative meaning of the word has come to mean a follower of the late Jerry Fallwell, et al, I am not a fundamentalist. The distinction of the two positions is subtitle, but critical.

To start things rolling, I ask you to look at each of the five historic fundamentals carefully. Can you agree to them, or which ones are difficult to understand?.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The word "THIRD" presumes that there is a first and a second. I just nailed a Mormon on CARM for failure to reference the entire article, just as you did. His post was deceitful because he took a tertiary meaning, and made it appear as a primary definition.

Because you hyperlinked the source, deception is not your primary purpose. Nevertheless, from Pinnock's article, you take an admitted "distinct minority" and make it seem as if it is the whole shooting match. It ain't.

What it appears to me is that you are setting up an "appeal to authority" contest. It is almost like little boys bragging "My old man can beat up your old man". It solves nothing, and engenders heat, but not light. That is why I think it best to discover what the original writers, and Jesus said about Scripture, then go from there.

If you cannot work from a good faith view of what I say then we really have nothing to discuss.

All I said before the quote I gave was:

Here is an article on the debate:

You can read whatever you want to into that. But remember that is merely you reading what you want into it.

I reject the fundamentalist assumptions. Which is why I am not a fundamentalist.

You might want to check out this information from a lecture I attended not too long ago.
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=38712456&postcount=8

 

[JohnT]

If you cannot work from a good faith view of what I say then we really have nothing to discuss.

All I said before the quote I gave was:
You can read whatever you want to into that. But remember that is merely you reading what you want into it.

I reject the fundamentalist assumptions. Which is why I am not a fundamentalist.

You might want to check out this information from a lecture I attended not too long ago.
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=38712456&postcount=8

Please understand that I am NOT trying to fight, merely discuss an issue. If you want to discuss a minority viewpoint, that is your choice; it is your thread. But it is not generally accepted, and I would like to demonstrate why that is the case.

My position is that I tried to make clear is that we must first go to the SOURCES of the writing, determining their premises. After that is determined, then we can look at what has happened via transmission of texts.

To me, it is a logical progression, and your approach seems to be placing a cap of modernism above the intentions of the writers, and of Jesus.

Tell me what is so wrong with that approach.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

It is our interpretations of what they said that is the question. Just because the Bible says "thus saith the Lord" does not make it truth or accurate any more then when the Koran says "saith the Lord". Yet that is the place many inerrantists begin.

Let me show you why this is important:

(Exo 31:12 KJV) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
(Exo 31:13 KJV) Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.(Exo 31:14 KJV) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

I highlighted the Lord Saith portion in red. That is a thus saith the Lord, it is a very specific command by God, do you put to death sabbath breakers? Why do you disobey the "Word of the Lord"? Is there some place where the God who does not changed changed? So maybe you think that that is just God's instructions to the Jews. Would you accept that Jews went around and killed Sabbath breakers, because they were following the "thus saith the Lord"?

So you see you cannot help but interpret the Bible in a modern way. For one that is the time period you live in and the culture and language you understand. And second it is all you have, as your interpretations are what you will put forward when you say "the intentions of the writers, and of Jesus." Fundamentalism has the problem of thinking that its view is the only view and really Fundamentalism is simply a fear of change, a reaction to the progression of thought that the German Theologians produced in the 1800's

 

[JohnT]

It is our interpretations of what they said that is the question. Just because the Bible says "thus saith the Lord" does not make it truth or accurate any more then when the Koran says "saith the Lord". Yet that is the place many inerrantists begin.

So maybe you think that that is just God's instructions to the Jews. Would you accept that Jews went around and killed Sabbath breakers, because they were following the "thus saith the Lord"?

So you see you cannot help but interpret the Bible in a modern way. For one that is the time period you live in and the culture and language you understand. And second it is all you have, as your interpretations are what you will put forward when you say "the intentions of the writers, and of Jesus." Fundamentalism has the problem of thinking that its view is the only view and really Fundamentalism is simply a fear of change, a reaction to the progression of thought that the German Theologians produced in the 1800's

Interesting that you quote a commandment between God and the JEWS, a ceremonial commandment, not a moral one as the basis for non- inerrancy. In doing so, you conveniently forget that Jesus and the Disciples frequently broke the Sabbath, and he said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Non-inerrancy is impossible to justify from the position of Sabbath observance. Neither are related.

BTW, I hope you are not trying to morph the thread into Sabbath breaking, etc. I will not go there on this train.

In your quote, there is no "thus saith the Lord" phrase so that issue is also moot.

Are you saying that Jesus is a modern because he and the Disciples broke the tradition of the elders regarding Sabbath? Wow, that is very strange.

The attempt to view inerrancy from today's perspective is wrong on several accounts.

1. It ignores the expressed intent of the authors, the primary source.

2. It ignores the original language, and milieu to which the authors spoke.

3. It ignores the fact that we have manuscripts of books in the OT that date to 100BC that are almost exact copies of the Masoretic Scripts of 600AD

4. It fails to understand that inerrancy was a given, not a modern construct. Instead, it is the documentary hypothesis is a modern construct.

5. It takes a psycho-babble approach to the many gifted, and highly skilled, scholarly men writing things that support inerrancy, and refute Graf-Wellhausen, by wrongly assigning fear as their collective, compelling motivation.

6. It makes the Qur'an on par with the Scriptures. Have you ever read about the transmission of the book? It will give you a good laugh. However, that has no similarity with the transmission of Scriptures. There are zero internal evidences for the accuracy of the Qur'an. Thus, that is another bogus comparison.

On the 11th, I posted the 5 historical fundamental in an effort to get you to discuss a starting place. Please address that, as it will make it easier to nail down common ground. Again, I ask you to respond to that.

I assume that you went to college, perhaps graduate school. You did many papers for the profs, and in none was a secondary source acceptable, such as Britannica, as it might be in high school. If you went to grad school, you went for the peer-reviewed journals for your authorities. In other words, as you became more educated, you eliminated the secondary sources, meaning what others said, and you went for the primary sources; what the significant people wrote themselves.

Your approach is entirely secondary. As such, it is akin to trying to examine a tree by looking at the tree top. To truly discover the nature of the tree, you have to look at its branches, leaves, trunk, and dig up some roots. That is the critical difference between our approaches.

BTW your approach is inductive in that it begins with an assumption, and then tries to prove that by looking at the facts that you cherry pick. My approach is deductive, beginning with a tabula raza, and letting them determine the outcome by looking at the primary sources, and their words, seeing if they conform to reality.

It is my opinion that the latter is more logical methodology, for it does not predetermine the outcome, as does your inductive approach.

Now, where are we going on this? Do we run around like a dog chasing its tail, or do we follow a method?

 

[Sophia7]

BTW since this is a SDA forum, making this open, to determine the universal meaning first, MAY be considered a FV. But I think that is the best, and most logical way to proceed The Mods may need to move this elsewhere.

It's fine to discuss this here in the Progressive sub-forum.

 

[freeindeed2]

It's fine to discuss this here in the Progressive sub-forum.

I agree. This is about the ONLY place for open and honest discussion.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Interesting that you quote a commandment between God and the JEWS, a ceremonial commandment, not a moral one as the basis for non- inerrancy.

Clearly you have a talent for dodging. First that command was most definitely moral you can't get much more moral then to be charged the death penalty. Of course it would be even worse if God was having people killed for ceremonial purposes.

In doing so, you conveniently forget that Jesus and the Disciples frequently broke the Sabbath, and he said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Non-inerrancy is impossible to justify from the position of Sabbath observance. Neither are related.

Really Jesus broke the Sabbath commandment. By munching on some grain or healing people on the Sabbath. Don't recall either of those in the commandment. You might have a case if He was gathering wood like the guy in the Old Testament who got stoned. Now the Bible quote was not to show proof of non-inerrancey but to show that we take the information in the Bible and interpret it in the light of other factors.

BTW, I hope you are not trying to morph the thread into Sabbath breaking, etc. I will not go there on this train.

No it is simply a good example of the brutality of the Old Testament laws. I could just have easily used adultery or disobedient children

In your quote, there is no "thus saith the Lord" phrase so that issue is also moot.

What nonsense how did my quote begin?
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying," Do you really see some differences in that and "Thus Saith the Lord", maybe Thus saith the Lord is a verbal inspiration code word in the fundamentalist world.

Are you saying that Jesus is a modern because he and the Disciples broke the tradition of the elders regarding Sabbath? Wow, that is very strange.

So you have a real difficult time interpreting lI see. No wonder you chose to allow others to do it for you, again something fundamentalist are known for. How could I possibly be saying that when you are the one who brought up Jesus as a Law breaker. Which by the way if He had broken the Sabbath they could have killed Him per the law of Moses. Yet they did not even try on that charge because they knew they had no case when Jesus responded to their charge.

The attempt to view inerrancy from today's perspective is wrong on several accounts.

Well I guess we are done then because I live in the Today I can only assume what the things about the pass unless I interpret them in the today (of course even the assumption is an interpretation done in the today). Which is the foundation of fundamentalism it assumes its view of the past is the only accurate view. And when it is questioned they say don't question it. Higher Criticism does few of the things you allege, it does not ignore the intent of the authors or the primary source materials. It pays attention to the language and the milieu of the authors. It incorporates lower criticism of the texts. It does not take inerrancy as a given that is about the only truthful point in your list.

On the 11th, I posted the 5 historical fundamental in an effort to get you to discuss a starting place. Please address that, as it will make it easier to nail down common ground. Again, I ask you to respond to that.

The topic was inerrancy which is the first on your list and I am pretty sure I responded that I don't believe in inerrancy what more do you really need? I don't believe in inerrancy, infallibility, or verbal inspiration. I also don't believe in the Substitutionary atonement theory. And it is silly to put an atonement theory as a fundamental, especially one that did not even exist in the early church.

Your approach is entirely secondary. As such, it is akin to trying to examine a tree by looking at the tree top. To truly discover the nature of the tree, you have to look at its branches, leaves, trunk, and dig up some roots. That is the critical difference between our approaches.

Right, you have asserted a slew of untruths about Higher Criticism and me, you say I am saying things which are coming only from your posts and yet you have the nerve to accuse me of being entirely secondary. That is rich, but since I have experience dealing with manipulative people I know how to point out your wrong assertions.

BTW your approach is inductive in that it begins with an assumption, and then tries to prove that by looking at the facts that you cherry pick. My approach is deductive, beginning with a tabula raza, and letting them determine the outcome by looking at the primary sources, and their words, seeing if they conform to reality.

I find this so incredible the kind of stuff you are writing. My approach begins with an assumption yet you said:
" 4. It fails to understand that inerrancy was a given"
Apparently your assumption are OK , likewise you are deductive and I am inductive, Why, because that is what you want to say and no other reason.

It is my opinion that the latter is more logical methodology, for it does not predetermine the outcome, as does your inductive approach.

Now, where are we going on this? Do we run around like a dog chasing its tail, or do we follow a method?

I have yet to see much logic from your view. A lot of personal garbage about how I am not doing things right. Fine I have replied in kind but I don't think there is any hope in continuing. You refuse to even look at the logic of your presupposition so there is really no where to go.

 

[JohnT]

.

Let;s see some things in perspective.

I cite six weaknesses inherent in your secondary source evaluation of inerrancy. In rebuttal, you can only cite a fragment of a sentence that distorts the meaning of both sentences in that objection.

I cite five historic fundamentals, trying to seek a common ground whereby we can have a chance to logically discuss things. You responded:

I don't believe in inerrancy, infallibility, or verbal inspiration. I also don't believe in the Substitutionary atonement theory. And it is silly to put an atonement theory as a fundamental, especially one that did not even exist in the early church.

Actually the theory dated back to Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109) and his work was NOT to create a new doctrine; it was to codify what actually happened. And if you do not believe in the substitutionary theory, then what is you believe that Jesus was doing on the cross?

That is an essential Christian doctrine, and has importance in the study of other doctrines, for it touches on the plan of the Atonement, and the way that sins are paid for. You see if Jesus was teaching cross stitching at Calvary, then the fabric of all the predictions of Christ in the OT are worthless.

I could go on making a rebuttal, but I think such an endeavor is not fruitful. Essentially you did not like my analysis, and took personal offense where none was given, and posted back angrily. Let's cut to the chase. You do not agree with me about inerrancy. I proposed a systematic study. Instead, you choose to use modern filters, and forget the history of the doctrine and the history of the church.

My understanding of your approach results in a skewed vision because the oldest and best documents are overlooked. For that reason, I suggested that we start at the source, and work upward, for it seems more systematic.

If you somehow believe that a systematic approach is possible using your method, please inform me how it is possible, and I will consider that.

If, on the other hand, you do not want to proceed in a systematic way, then I understand also.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

If you somehow believe that a systematic approach is possible using your method, please inform me how it is possible, and I will consider that.

If, on the other hand, you do not want to proceed in a systematic way, then I understand also.

I tried but you did not answer the questions I raised, rather you asserted that I had said something about Jesus that you thought was "Are you saying that Jesus is a modern because he and the Disciples broke the tradition of the elders regarding Sabbath? Wow, that is very strange."

You claimed that " in your quote, there is not "thus saith the Lord" phrase so that issue is also moot." Even though the quote said "and the Lord spake unto Moses saying and then it quotes what the Lord said. What you call systematic is simply following your assumptions, and the assumptions of your fundamentalist mentors.

So when you can't understand these relatively simply things you are likely not going to understand the various atonement theories. By the way none of those atonement theories was made with the intent of creating a new atonement theory.

Oh and do I believe that no personal offense was intended? No, the result of your words, as they say, speaks for themselves.

And when you wanted to start with the source which is the Bible which is why I posted the quote from Exodus 31 you went off and made claims which I had said nothing of and did not answer the questions I asked. No instead you want to start with the source only upon the supposition that "inerrancy is a given". I can give you some information on What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement? but I doubt you will read it.

 

[JohnT]

.

Good Monday Morning to you!

OK, let's begin with a slow exhale. Now read this: ABSOLUTELY NO insult was neither intended, nor deliberately inferred when I wrote. Clear?

Next step.

It seems as if you want to deal with the Atonement as a base. If that is the case, please tell me which following theories you subscribe to, if any:

1. Satisfaction for the sins of the world;

2 Redemption from the devil or from the wrath of God

3. Saving Example of true, suffering love

4. Prime Illustration of divine mercy;

5 Divine Victory over the forces of evil

6 Satisfaction that there is no remission of sin without the shedding of Christ's blood.

Whatever course you take, by necessity, it must account for

a: Paul's explanation of the Atonement (see Romans 5:8-11; 2 Corinthians 5:18,19; Galatians 1:4; 1John 2:2; & 4:10.)

b. That other NY writers said it was foreordained (See Romans 3:25; 1Peter 1:11 & 20; Revelation 13:8. )

c. It was foreordained (See Isaiah 53:3-6)
​

To be sure, there is lots more written on the subject of the Atonement, but this is a start in the way to look at inerrancy.

Shalom,
John T

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

It seems as if you want to deal with the Atonement as a base. If that is the case, please tell me which following theories you subscribe to, if any:

No, I merely answered you question and gave you an article I wrote on the subject that I thought you would not read. And it appears I was right.

 

[JohnT]

You are correct, I did not read it entirely.

You quote SDA sources, and the pseudo book of Enoch as sources. Your chronology is way off 14 centuries until Anselm. He died in 1109. And you completely disregard the doctrine of imputed, Adamic sin.

You also use a contemporary song to "prove" an old concept???

Yeah, it is OK, but severely lacking. That is why I suggested that we begin by looking at the Bible says, first.


OOPS! You don't believe in inerrancy, either! But you certainty cite portions of it out of contest, and ignore other clear sections of Scripture that I wrote to you about,

Hmmm, maybe you did not read the Bible references, Ya think? Or is the Bible inerrant only it supports what Ellen says what it says?

If you want to be systematic, I will help you, as I said that MANY, many times. If you want to go off helter skelter, and cite your SDA sources, but not those of major theologians, go ahead, you'll do it alone.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well John I have no idea what you problem is. I quote a host of people. My information on the atonement theories is accurate and taken from the New Herzog and Shaff Religious Encyclopedia (new is kind of funny since that was the early 1900's). It takes nothing from Ellen White because Ellen White was very clearly a believer in the substitutionary/Penal atonement.

And you know what I have used far more Bible texts then you listed and no doubt some that you listed.

You sadly are not objective, and have a tract record of not understanding information and drawing unwarranted conclusion. To learn from you how to be systematic would be like taking flying lessons from a barnyard pig.