How crucial is Biblical Inerrancy to being Reformed?

[hedrick]

Any thoughts on the discrepancy between posters here and the fact most Presbys both in USA and even more so belong to liberal denominations like PC-USA? While it is true the PC-USA is declining in membership, while more Bible-adherant denominations like my own PCA are slowly increasing, we still have the majority of reformed in the PC-USA (about 2 million).

Most of the churches that go back to the original Reformation churches are liberal. The PCA is an offshoot of the PCUSA's predecessor, and I think the same tends to be true of other conservative Reformed denominations. But the main body of Reformed churches continued following new scholarship since the 16th Cent. That's not an unexpected thing given that the 16th Cent Reformed movement was a result of new Biblical scholarship in the 16th Cent.

CF is primarily conservative. The definition of Reformed in this forum is oriented towards conservative Reformed folk. It's not one that would be accepted by members of the World Communion of Reformed Churches. Even the PCA would surely not define itself primarily by the 5 points. For a broader Reformed context, the definition points to a set of confessions at the CRTA that omits the 20th Cent confessions used by the PCUSA and other Reformed denominations. While the World Communion doesn't have its own confessions, the statements on its web site and the definition in its constitution are consistent with 20th Cent PCUSA confessions such as the Confession of 1967 and the Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith.

So my answer is that inerrancy may be essential to Reformed as seen by CF, but not to real-world Reformed Christianity.

As most people here presumably know, the Reformed tradition is confessional. However that term is subject to two interpretations. The conservative one says that confessions are standards. In principle they can be changed but in practice they aren't and probably can't be. The definition used by the majority of Reformed sees a confessional church as a community that has covenanted to do theology as a community, and expresses their theology through confessions.

 

[Eddie L]

Most of the churches that go back to the original Reformation churches are liberal.

That's not a fair association, though, Hedrick, since the views followed by liberal denomination are not similar to those held by the early Reformers. The Reformers pulled the church away from Rome' travels from the original truth, and many of us believe that the liberal denomination need to be pulled back again.

The PCA is an offshoot of the PCUSA's predecessor, and I think the same tends to be true of other conservative Reformed denominations. But the main body of Reformed churches continued following new scholarship since the 16th Cent. That's not an unexpected thing given that the 16th Cent Reformed movement was a result of new Biblical scholarship in the 16th Cent.

That, of course, is your take on history. If you call "new scholarship" the restoration of the church to its root, then I'll agree. That doesn't seem a likely definition, though.

 

[hedrick]

That's not a fair association, though, Hedrick, since the views followed by liberal denomination are not similar to those held by the early Reformers.

I agree. Obvious if there is further change after the Reformers time, after the change people won't have the same views as the Reformers. The question is: did the Reformers believe they had found the final answer, so there should be no further change, or did they believe their descendants should continue to follow where Scripture leads, and possibly come to somewhat different conclusions? I believe the latter is the case.

That, of course, is your take on history. If you call "new scholarship" the restoration of the church to its root, then I'll agree. That doesn't seem a likely definition, though.

But why did the Reformation take place when it did? There are a number of things leading to it, but I claim a large part (probably the largest) is recent scholarship on the Bible. With the return to the Greek texts, people discovered that a number of key ideas were based on mistranslations in the Latin Bible. Critical scholarship discovered that the Donation of Constantine was a fake. And Luther discovered what Paul actually meant by justification. These are results of scholarship.

While Calvin at least did believe he was restoring older understandings of theology, it's clear that his authority was Scripture, not the Fathers.

The Reformers faced exactly the same criticisms from Catholics that mainline churches today face from conservatives: you're betraying tradition, based on your own personal views of what Scripture says, views which disagree with what everyone knows Scripture actually means. In doing this you are giving up doctrines that are essential to salvation.

I'm sorry if you don't see the parallel.

The parallel doesn't prove that I'm right. Our ideas could be completely off the mark. The fact that the Reformers changed things doesn't mean that every further change is good. The only thing I'm trying to say is that it is not unreasonable for someone come from the Reformed tradition to continue doing what the Reformers did, by making changes in theology as new understandings of Scripture happen. We could be completely wrong, but nothing about the Reformers method guarantees that there will be no further changes after their time, nor suggests that following generations shouldn't be willing to do what they did.

 

[Eddie L]

I agree. Obvious if there is further change after the Reformers time, after the change people won't have the same views as the Reformers. The question is: did the Reformers believe they had found the final answer, so there should be no further change, or did they believe their descendants should continue to follow where Scripture leads, and possibly come to somewhat different conclusions? I believe the latter is the case.

But you can't argue that liberalism is simply following where the Scriptures lead when liberalism reduces the authority of the Scriptures. If the Scriptures are not the authority, then the parallelism with the Reformers is broken.

But why did the Reformation take place when it did? There are a number of things leading to it, but I claim a large part (probably the largest) is recent scholarship on the Bible. With the return to the Greek texts, people discovered that a number of key ideas were based on mistranslations in the Latin Bible. Critical scholarship discovered that the Donation of Constantine was a fake. And Luther discovered what Paul actually meant by justification. These are results of scholarship.

Scholarship based on the Scriptures, which is not NEW scholarship, but a course correction. Liberalism is not the same thing, since it is not interested in pursuing the Scriptures (original manuscripts or otherwise) for its scholarship.

While Calvin at least did believe he was restoring older understandings of theology, it's clear that his authority was Scripture, not the Fathers.

Liberalism is not pursing restoration to Scripture or the Fathers. Surely you see that, Hedrick. Theologically, you are the most conservative liberal I've ever seen. The typical liberal Christian is not interested in biblical scholarship.

The Reformers faced exactly the same criticisms from Catholics that mainline churches today face from conservatives: you're betraying tradition, based on your own personal views of what Scripture says, views which disagree with what everyone knows Scripture actually means. In doing this you are giving up doctrines that are essential to salvation.

The difference was that the Reformers had the support of the Scriptures and not the Church in terms of authority. Liberalism has neither.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

liberalism is a religion that refuses to bow down to the Lordship of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture. In fact, it is totally diametrically opposed to absolute truth itself. One of the pillars of the religion of liberalism is moral relativism and the fact that liberalism believes that there is no truth.

 

[bsd058]

liberalism is a religion that refuses to bow down to the Lordship of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture. In fact, it is totally diametrically opposed to absolute truth itself. One of the pillars of the religion of liberalism is moral relativism and the fact that liberalism believes that there is no truth.

Not only that...they smell funny too.

jk.

I agree with you, though.

They subject the word of God to their own authority, as though they have a right to say that God's word contains error, when Jesus confirmed the authority of Scripture with his own authority given to him by the Father.

 

[hedrick]

Liberalism is not pursing restoration to Scripture or the Fathers. Surely you see that, Hedrick. Theologically, you are the most conservative liberal I've ever seen. The typical liberal Christian is not interested in biblical scholarship.

I am more strongly commited to Scripture than conservatives are, because I'm willing to follow Scripture even when it involves rejection of tradition.

There are three types of liberals:

* Those who believe our faith should be based on Jesus' life and teachings, and differ from conservatives primarily in (1) using newer understandings of what Jesus meant, taking account of discoveries about 1st Cent Judaism in the latter half of the 20th Cent (2) selective use of critiacal scholarship, (3) thinking that some doctrines are more based on Christian tradition than Scripture, and seeing this as a problem. Current representatives would be N. T. Wright or Marcus Borg. Earlier would be Ritschl and Rauschenbusch.

* Those who accept critical scholarship, but think that Christian ideas can properly be based on Christian experience even if Jesus might not have accepted the ideas and Scriptural support is weak. Most of these folks accept traditional Christian doctrines, even where they think they aren't Scripturally based, but will differ from conservatives on inerrancy (primarily evolution, etc), on ethics (primarily sexual), and on more sympathy for the social gospel, but not as a replacement for traditional personal religion. This approach goes back to Schliermacher and Barth (though Barth wouldn't admit it), and you'd probably include Bultmann as well. These are the folks who conservatives often think are using traditional words but with nontraditional meanings.

* Those who I refer to as "'Taint Necessarily So" Christians, who are just kind of generally skeptical, but still try to lead a basically Christian life.

I'm of the first kind. I believe that as a Christian, our theology should be based on Jesus'. This is probably not the type of liberal you typically think of. This movement is definitely committed to furthering the Reformers' restoration of Christianity to Scripture.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

I'm of the first kind. I believe that as a Christian, our theology should be based on Jesus'. This is probably not the type of liberal you typically think of. This movement is definitely committed to furthering the Reformers' restoration of Christianity to Scripture.

It sounds like you're one of those liberals that believes that there is a contradiction between Jesus and Paul.

 

[gord44]

I believe that as a Christian, our theology should be based on Jesus'.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

Deconstructionism at play here.

 

[bsd058]

I believe that as a Christian, our theology should be based on Jesus'.

So then you agree that Scripture is inerrant/cannot be broken...good.

 

[hedrick]

It sounds like you're one of those liberals that believes that there is a contradiction between Jesus and Paul.

Not a contradiction. A difference in emphasis. Paul did a lot of important work. He interpreted Christianity for its spread into the empire. I think his theology is perfectly legitimate. However my approach is to start with Jesus' teachings in the synoptics as the core of the Gospel, and look to Paul for interpretations for his churches. Not that what he said isn't helpful to us. It generally is. Both John and Paul looked at the significance of Jesus from a post-resurrection perspective, something that is missing in the Gospels for obvious reasons. It's something Christians clearly had to do. I just don't confuse Paul with the Word made flesh.

Protestant tradition, however, tends to start with Paul for its outline of the Gospel, and let Jesus fill in ethical details. Even though they don't contradict each other, you still get somewhat different results depending upon which one you use to frame the questions.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

Hmm...

 

[AmericanSamurai]

Paul got his marching orders from Jesus.

 

[bsd058]

However my approach is to start with Jesus' teachings in the synoptics as the core of the Gospel, and look to Paul for interpretations for his churches. Not that what he said isn't helpful to us. It generally is. Both John and Paul looked at the significance of Jesus from a post-resurrection perspective, something that is missing in the Gospels for obvious reasons. It's something Christians clearly had to do. I just don't confuse Paul with the Word made flesh.

You do realize the Gospels were written after the resurrection, with it in mind, don't you? And that Jesus taught about the significance of his death and resurrection in detail...

 

[Eddie L]

You do realize the Gospels were written after the resurrection, with it in mind, don't you? And that Jesus taught about the significance of his death and resurrection in detail...

I don't think we can understand Jesus and the gospels without the epistles, specifically because Jesus did not teach the implications and results of His death and resurrection. That wasn't His purpose for coming. He gave the role of educating the flock to Peter (the apostles) and Paul.

Our theology and doctrine comes from the prophets and apostles, who were men being used to reveal the gospel. It's like the teaching of the prophets plus the words and work of Christ leads to the mystery solved in the words of the Apostles. Jesus had to come against the backdrop of the Old Testament to make the way for the truth of the New Testament. They all stand together, or none stands at all.

 

[bsd058]

I don't think we can understand Jesus and the gospels without the epistles, specifically because Jesus did not teach the implications and results of His death and resurrection. That wasn't His purpose for coming. He gave the role of educating the flock to Peter (the apostles) and Paul.

Our theology and doctrine comes from the prophets and apostles, who were men being used to reveal the gospel. It's like the teaching of the prophets plus the words and work of Christ leads to the mystery solved in the words of the Apostles. Jesus had to come against the backdrop of the Old Testament to make the way for the truth of the New Testament. They all stand together, or none stands at all.

You're right. I don't think we can either. The Gospels were not meant to express the intricacies of the doctrine taught by the apostles, but what I meant was that the Gospels were written in light of the importance of Christ's suffering/death and resurrection.

I'm sure the Spirit led them into right doctrine, I was just stating that Jesus didn't teach anything in contradiction to what the apostles taught and vice verse.

As long as we recognize that what the apostles believed and what Christ knew were the same things. The Holy Spirit may have taught them and Christ may have opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, but we know he was teaching about his death and resurrection during his ministry. The apostles just didn't understand him at that time.

I just don't want to give any room to say that the doctrines the apostles wrote (which are considered scripture) about were somehow secondary to Christ's teachings. They weren't. The apostles' teachings (in the epistles) are on par with Christ's teachings and carry the same authority.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

Jesus himself preached that a house divided cannot stand. If there are divisions with Jesus and Paul, the Gospel doesn't work.

 

[Eddie L]

You're right. I don't think we can either. The Gospels were not meant to express the intricacies of the doctrine taught by the apostles, but what I meant was that the Gospels were written in light of the importance of Christ's suffering/death and resurrection.

I'm sure the Spirit led them into right doctrine, I was just stating that Jesus didn't teach anything in contradiction to what the apostles taught and vice verse.

As long as we recognize that what the apostles believed and what Christ knew were the same things. The Holy Spirit may have taught them and Christ may have opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, but we know he was teaching about his death and resurrection during his ministry. The apostles just didn't understand him at that time.

I just don't want to give any room to say that the doctrines the apostles wrote (which are considered scripture) about were somehow secondary to Christ's teachings. They weren't. The apostles' teachings (in the epistles) are on par with Christ's teachings and carry the same authority.

I agree.

 

[cubanito]

Generally I discount a lot of what Jesus said because He intended not to be understood. So I very much prefer starting my theology from the epistles (not just Paul) and view a lot of what Jesus said in the Gospels with suspicion.

Put another way, Jesus was the greatest con artist the world has ever seen. he was so good a deceiver that He even fooled Satan into helping Him accomplish His plan. As God Himself I would expect nothing less. God is the Greatest at everything, even con jobs. No, God never lies, which is what makes it even more amazing that without lying He fooled everybody, even that most crafty of all creatures, that old serpent.

OK, by now some of you are wondering what bizarre heresy I am into. Actually, I simply believe Jesus when He quoted Isaiah that He would speak in parables in order NOT to be understood. Please get that clearly: Jesus Christ did not WANT to be understood by the masses. Much of what He spoke was purposely misleading. Not what I say, what He said.

It has to do with what His purpose was. He did NOT come, as all other religious leaders, to convert thousands and build some huge movement. No, the only times He spoke clearly was to His disciples (who rarely understood Him as they were not yet filled with the Con-Forterer, the Empowering Holy Ghost), and outcasts with no ability to interfere with his mission, like a Samaritan woma with a questionable lifestyle and past. In fact, when the influential Nicodemus came to get clear answers, or the rich young ruler, they were given very cryptic responses designed to confuse them. Same as when He saw too many thousands following, so He began to preach about eating Him, leading to dispersal of the crowds who naturally thought He was talking cannibalism.

No, Jesus did NOT come to save many, and did NOT preach the Gospel. Is the Gospel that if one wishes to be saved one must be Perfect as the Father in Heaven is Perfect? Well, in a sense yes, but only because by the light of the epistles we understand what He meant. What He actually said, devoid of clarification, is that it is IMPOSSSIBLE for anyone to be saved. He preached only half the Gospel, the part that we are sinners who can NOT please God and all deserve Hell. That is why, after Pentecost thousands came to belief. Jesus brought only the bad news, He did NOT make the Good News clear at all,hiding it behind cryptic messages. Reminds me of a volleyball game where the initial response to the ball is to set it up so that someone else (the Apostles and now we) can spike it over the net.

So, if Jesus did not come to save, what did He come to do? To die a miserable death, abandoned by the meager few who followed Him, handed over by His own people to the hated occupiers. Cast outside the camp on Golgotha like the scapegoat. Had Jesus made His words clear, the thousands that swelled into the early Church, even the Greeks (whom when He saw were inquiring of Him knew His time to be short as He was not willing that Gentiles like Luke should join Him), If those thousands had truly converted, would He have died despised and almost alone?

Our Lord and Saviour, the sweetest man ever, hid the Truth to die for me. I spat on Him, I cried out for His blood to the Romans and I nailed His precious hands to the Tree of Life. I only Love Him because He first Loved me. Loved me so much He kept the Truth hidden. How He must have burned with the desire to say the Gospel openly and clearly, to bring Nicodemus and the rich young ruler into the Kingdom right away, as a hen to shelter her chicks. He did not. He looked foward to the cross, something He so dreaded His precious blood became sweat at the thought of it, all because He loved me.

Yeah, so jesus was the Greatest Everything, even the Greatest con artist the world has ever known, even craftier than the serpent, who is craftier than all the beasts of the field. Am I saying anything not straight out of Scripture? Shall I add that He said we would do greater works than Him? Shall I remind you that we have become wealthy, bringing from the Holy Con-Forter treasures both old and new?

JR