Re: NT inerrancy??

I had said:

> One cannot help but notice how much time and energy is
> spent on this list to protect the (humanly crafted) concept of biblical
> infallibility and other propositions that serve to place the Judeo-Christian
> canon in an elevated category totally different from the canonical texts of
> all other religious communities.

Michael replied

> Sorry Howard but the logic of your
> position is to have no effective Christian faith at all as you have no
> grounds to have anything more than a vague generalised theism.

I didn't actually state a position in the above comment, but on other
occasions I have candidly said, in effect, that I accept the Bible as a
thoroughly human testimony to the authentic human experience of the divine
presence; specifically, the Judeo-Christian Bible is the testimony provided
by the Hebrew and early Christian communities. From this I believe that I
get more than a "vague generalized theism," but I don't care to list a menu
of those beliefs for this list to critique.

> Although I am
> not an inerrantist, without giving the bible final authority in all matters
> of faith and doctrine and ethics we cant say anything beyond what we feel.

You surely didn't mean to say that there are only two options: 1) to declare
one historical text to be the authoritative canon for the Christian
community, or 2) to be dependent on nothing more than mere "feelings."

What happened to well-informed and thoroughly-reasoned judgments?

I know that the designation of an official canon can sometimes function well
to stabilize the beliefs of a community and to settle arguments within that
community, but I'm not at all sold on the idea that stabilizing a belief
system is always a good thing. It certainly is not the core epistemic value
in the natural sciences.

Howard Van Till
Received on Wed Dec 31 16:16:50 2003