Welcome to our forums...

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OBJECTIVE TRUTH View Post
    That tells me that they are only professing Christians. How can one NOT strongly defend the inerrancy of the bible? Sounds to me like the people you describe aren't sure about what they believe. Kind of reminds me of people that register as "independents," instead of a part with a written platform.

    They probably can't decided who should get off the elevator first.
    Wait, I think you misread what I wrote.

    I said that in my experience, it's generally the people who do NOT hold to inerrancy that don't get upset about those of us who do.



    The scriptures are under unrelenting attack and I for one, will defend inerrancy with everything I have. If a person doesn't hold to inerrancy, then they haven't a thing to say to me that is worth a hill of beans.
    Even though I consider myself an inerrantist, I have to say that inerrancy is to some extent a theoretical concept, in that it applies only to the original mss., which no longer exist.

    Besides that, there is IMO a tendency for inerrantists to gravitate toward the idea that particular hermeneutical methods and practical applications are also virtually inerrant. That's a problem I have with the "Chicago Statements." I find the Inerrancy statement quite acceptable. I find the Hermeneutics and Application statements generally ok, but I'm not entirely satisfied with all areas. But since all three Statements were crafted by pretty much the same team of scholars, and the later ones derived from the former, that implies they may intend things in their Inerrancy Statement that I would not accept; IOW, if the later Statements shed additional light on what they "really mean" in the Inerrancy Statement, I may be less inclined to accept it.


    What do you mean Federal Vision "doesn't bother me?" It denies Justification by Faith and is more in line with the Catholic Church. It is absolute heresy and is a cancer infecting the church. It, for now, is infecting mostly Reformed Churches, but it is spreading.

    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF...eralVision.pdf

    Thank God I'm not in a Reformed Church and that nonsense wouldn't get through the door at my church. Praise God!!
    The Joint Statement PDF put out by some FV advocates specifically affirms salvation by grace through faith alone.

    Personally, I have as much problem with some of the explicitly Calvinist language of that Statement as with anything else in it.
    "I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage

    "Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt

    "Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody

  2. #12
    Fundamental Thinker
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    COLORADO
    Posts
    3,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Norrin Radd View Post
    Wait, I think you misread what I wrote.

    I said that in my experience, it's generally the people who do NOT hold to inerrancy that don't get upset about those of us who do.





    Even though I consider myself an inerrantist, I have to say that inerrancy is to some extent a theoretical concept, in that it applies only to the original mss., which no longer exist.

    Besides that, there is IMO a tendency for inerrantists to gravitate toward the idea that particular hermeneutical methods and practical applications are also virtually inerrant. That's a problem I have with the "Chicago Statements." I find the Inerrancy statement quite acceptable. I find the Hermeneutics and Application statements generally ok, but I'm not entirely satisfied with all areas. But since all three Statements were crafted by pretty much the same team of scholars, and the later ones derived from the former, that implies they may intend things in their Inerrancy Statement that I would not accept; IOW, if the later Statements shed additional light on what they "really mean" in the Inerrancy Statement, I may be less inclined to accept it.




    The Joint Statement PDF put out by some FV advocates specifically affirms salvation by grace through faith alone.

    Personally, I have as much problem with some of the explicitly Calvinist language of that Statement as with anything else in it.
    Here again, is the review of Federal Vision. If you disagree with this review, then all I can say is that I'm sorry to hear that. I find, like the reviewer, serious problems with the concept:

    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF...eralVision.pdf

    I apologize that I misread your statement about inerrancy. However, I don't accept the silly statement by those that say "the bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts." That would mean that no bible we have today is inerrant because no one alive has, for centuries, seen the so-called "original manuscripts."

    I tend to go along with those that say God has preserved His Word and we do have an inerrant bible. That is another whole discussion which is covered on another thread.

    http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/...v/part1-6.html

    Actually I too have problems with some of the statements of "Calvinists." Especially in this day and age. Like any other branch of theology, just because someone says they are a Calvinist or an Arminian, you have to make them define what they mean by that because there are so many variations.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Page generated in 1,417,111,869.19712 seconds with 14 queries

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0