Re: NT inerrancy??

Caveat up front to our esteemed moderator -- my humble
apologies, I know this is my fifth post, today, but it
is short really, really my last... very sorry. Thanks
for the special dispensation, please forgive my
truancy.
 
--- wallyshoes <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Blake,
>
> I think that there is something else that should be
> said.
>
> There are a lot of learned people on this list that
> have a deep
> theological background. ASA, as I understand it, is
> comprised of members
> who are scientists and Christians. While you
> theologians can contribute
> a lot, . . .

I am not a theologian in any way shape or form (except
the Eastern Orthodox definition -- one who prays is a
theologian), I just have (mis)spent my time in a lot
of odd (to the general public) reading. This was the
comment that "demanded" my response. I don't pretend
to be a theologian. I don't think I even "play" one
on this list other than as an amateur of the most
amateurish kind. ;)

> I fail to agree that you can redefine the
> common usage of words
> when speaking to a "plain vanilla" Christian.

I recognize your point and think it valid, which is
why I suggested jettisoning the use of the words. My
pedantic nitpick is that it is the common usage that
has changed, NOT the technical use of the words.

Gratuitous Example #1: "It's the exception that proves
the rule."

What the heck does that mean? If something violates a
rule, doesn't it tend to show that the rule is really
not a rule? Since when does something which goes
against a law or rule show it to be true?

Answer: It doesn't. The meaning of the verb "to
prove" has changed in common use, but we have retained
the expression which now means THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

To prove at one point meant to TEST -- we still get
that meaning in Proving Grounds, which mean a test
range. So an exception tested a rule and showed it
actually to be false.

Today, prove in common usage means to show something
to be TRUE.

So we have a figure of speech that now is utterly the
OPPOSITE from what it meant when it was coined.

Pedantic mode off.

> The
> words "true" and
> "infallible", etc. should be those in common usage,
> not in some esoteric
> fashion that someone like me does not understand.
>
>
> I would also object to the notion that a number of
> texts _must_ be taken
> in some sort of allegorical fashion as indicated by
> a school of thought
> that applies to a particular theology of some
> members on this list.

I have never suggested that they have to be (or if I
did, I did so unintentionally). My only point is that
when one comes up with something that appears to be
not literally possible, the response is not to reject
it but to ask one's self if one is misunderstanding
the text.
 
> Because of my background as a former Presbyterian
> elder, I happen to use
> Tyndale Commentaries to find meaning. In general,
> these do not agree
> with the posts on this list.

Yes, there are a variety of interpretations in all
sorts of commentaries. I think my point has always
been that these are interpretations and one should be
aware that interpretations are not necessarily what
the text says and other parts of orthodox christianity
interpret those texts differently. As I mentioned in
a response re the VB earlier today -- the Orthodoxy
thread --, I think that a large dollop of humility is
necessary even when we think we are certain about what
the correct interpretation is.
 
> Having said all that, I want to be clear that I
> agree that the NT was
> not in existence when the early church started. All
> the more reason why
> I do NOT see the need for elevating them to some
> "infallible" level.

I think as we discussed the meaning of infallible is
the problem here. In the past, I have suggested that
they are important, among other things, in terms of
the earliest source documents we have. To do a gloss
on the Reformers and their reaction to RC "tradition"
I think the point was well made that scripture should
be a deciding authority on particular matters of faith
and practice, which is what the disputes were about.
The Reformers IMHO (at least the ones I have read
about) would not say that it is the final authority on
other things. Luther, for example, had affinity and
respect for many RC practices. For example, he
thought rather highly of confession, and retained
confession (although Lutherans, at least in my
experience, rarely practice it), but put it in what
Luther thought was the appropriate context, not
requiring a complete enumeration of sins which he
thought impossible (for scriptural and practical
reasons), but IIRC not requiring private absolution
for taking communion and not retaining it as a
sacrament. Now, this response to perceived RC
distoritions and using scripture to evaluate tradition
is very different from rejecting tradition altogether
or saying that scripture dictates the answer to all
questions that we ever want to ask about anything.

> That simply strikes me as some sort of psychological
> need to venerate
> and nearly worship the Biblical texts.

Which I think is an excellent point and one that I
wholly agree with (the two probably would go together
for most people, wouldn't they?)

> I respect the NT and get great value out of reading
> it --- and the OT as
> well. I believe that they obviously were written by
> men who (although
> inspired) were limited in understanding. Yes indeed,
> they might even
> make an occasional error (horrors!).

I think that goes along with the technical and
historic understanding of inerrancy.

> However the
> notion that some
> stories that are presented as facts are allegories
> of some sort is not
> universally accepted and there is no reason for me
> to reject the more
> straightforward interpretations.

Especially when the end result is the same. If one
wishes to prove that people can live inside particular
fish for three days because Jonah says so, I would
politely suggest to the person that that might miss
the point of the whole story. ;)

> You call it "infallible" meaning one thing and
> Christian sects then use
> the "infallible" concept to argue for Biblical
> literalism and anti
> science stances.
>
> Hence I object to that notion and say that it is
> false within the
> normal usage of the word "infallible" by the
> Christians in the pew (of
> which I am one).

> IMO
>
>
> Pig headed old Wally
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
Received on Wed Dec 31 17:38:33 2003