See
https://bellatorchristi.com/2023/10/26/s7e8-inerrancy-does-it-matter/
In case my post gets deleted, here's a screenshot proving the post was made, followed by the actual text:
Text:
What I offer here is not proof that you are unreasonable, but that Christians who reject bible inerrancy are reasonable.
First, I have't studied your own views enough to detect what you think about this, but I will assume that you think inerrancy arises either naturally or logically, or both, from divine inspiration, on the grounds that "god cannot lie" (i.e., Geisler-flavored inerrantism, i,e., "The bible is God's word, God cannot err, therefore the bible cannot err".). So your problem is in explaining why you think the mere fact that the author is "divinely inspired" somehow necessitates that whatever he wrote during such inspiration, was inerrant. You cannot deny that the author of Revelation was divinely inspired, and yet it was WHILE he was divinely inspired that he committed the capital offense of idolatry twice, with the angel rebuking it as a sin that is to be avoided (19:10, 22:8). So if somebody wanted to stay open to the possibility that other NT authors engaged in acts of sin/imperfection while they were in the process of writing the text of their NT books, you could not rationally insist that this is completely out of the question.
Second, if you deny Geisler's version of inerrancy, then you have a version of inerrancy that is far less clearly "biblical", which might require that you stop characterizing as unreasonable those Christians who think inerrancy is modern day Phariseeism.
Third, you cannot theologically separate inerrancy from divine inspiration. You would never say that maybe Romans could be inerrant while also lacking divine inspiration. Since your position views divine inspiration as necessary to biblical inerrancy:
1 - What bible verse or verses most strongly support(s) the divine inspiration of the NT? To make things easy, feel free to provide your proofs in the same order as the order of the NT canon: Proof that Matthew is divinely inspired, proof that Mark is divinely inspired, etc. The less clear the divine inspiration of NT books is, the less unreasonable will be those who reject NT inerrancy. And yet something tells me that when you meet another Trinitarian Christian who denies biblical inerrancy, you think they are not presently experiencing all of the spiritual growth potential that god has made possible for them to presently experience.
2 - Is your inerrancy-favoring interpretation of those NT verses so clear and compelling that those who disagree with you on the point must be unreasonable to so disagree? Or could disagreement with you on the point possibly be reasonable?
3 - Most conservative and fundamentalist churches have a statement of doctrines they consider "essential to salvation", very few of them express or imply that belief in the inerrancy of the NT is essential to salvation. That is an awful lot of spiritually alive people who are failing to notice how crucial the inerrancy of the NT is, reasonably suggesting their view does not arise from ignorance, but from the non-existence of the doctrine in the first place. This renders the outsider reasonable to conclude that rejection of NT inerrancy iis not anymore unreasonable than is rejection of Preterism.
4 - Could a Christian do absolutely everything which Jesus in the 4 canonical gospels required of them, while sincerely believing the whole time that the doctrine of NT inerrancy is false? I say yes, their trust that the 4 gospels correctly convey Jesus' commands, does not demand they assent to gospel-inerrancy, only that they assent to the historical reliability of the gospels. As as I'm sure you are aware, most Christian apologists insist that belief in bible inerrancy is by no means necessary before a person can be reasonable to say Jesus' resurrection is the one theory that best explains the NT evidence..
I'm not saying inerrantists are unreasonable. I'm merely saying those who reject NT inerrancy can be reasonable to do so. Contrary to popular belief, reasonableness for one group does not dictate the limits of reasonableness for another group. And yet the humble attitude that says your opponent could possibly be equally as reasonable as you, is not only nowhere allowed in NT theology, but is explicitly condemned by Paul who seems to think that disagreement with him automatically justifies anathematizing the opponent (Gal. 1:6-9), or insisting that they "know nothing", and worse (1st Tim. 6:3, Titus 3:9-11). That is, if you refuse to become an intolerant bigot in your theological views, you are willfully disobeying apostle Paul's demand that you imitate him (1st Cor. 11:1).
If spiritually alive people cannot even agree on such spiritual things, you can hardly expect spiritually dead people, like me, to manifest more accurate discernment of such spiritual things.
Hope that helps.
==================end
No comments:
Post a Comment