My question, generally, is this such a place?
More specifically:
I call myself an "orthodox Christian", by which I mean that I accept the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles', Nicene, & Athanasian), along with some other bits.
But, I no longer call myself an "evangelical", since many who are, understand that term to include things like a belief in inerrancy. For most of my Christian life, I've been a member of the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America -- an evangelical offshoot of the mainline, and liberal, PCUSA) which takes the Westminster Confession as its primary creedal statement. But, I'm no longer a 'good' Presbyterian, either.
My 'evangelical faith' began to unravel, over 20 years ago, when I spent a year teaching the book of Hebrews to a large SS class. The problem for me was that the OT passages (NASB) quoted in Hebrews varied non-trivially in their quoted form, from the form found in the translated original passage.
This was a huge problem for me.
I became a Christian at L'Abri, in the early 70's, but at that time simply uncritically re-embraced the evangelical Presbyterian faith I'd grown up with. (Ironically, this faith was, incidentally, very close to Francis Schaeffer's own personal theology. ) Having settled (so I thought) the question of whether Christianity could be true, I didn't think too much at that time about which flavor of Christianity was true.
Of course, within that form of evangelicalism, inerrancy is pretty much the linchpin of everything else. Lose it (so I thought, and so many yet think), and you lose everything else, and are left only with liberal "make me feel better on Sunday" psycho-theology.
Fortunately, I had already read most of what CS Lewis had written, and realized that he was (a) a Christian and (b) not an inerrantist. That gave me hope, but I still ended up spending almost 15 years trying to figure out what I could believe. There was a long period, when I wasn't sure that there was much of an answer.
I hope that's past now, and I've settled a number of questions in my own mind. I've also tried to test my conclusions for coherency, but found it difficult. I'd like to do so, not only for my own sake, but even more so because what I believe is what I teach my boys . . . and what they have (mostly) ended up believing. My 21 year old is pretty much on his own now. He listens to me, but more and more, makes up his own mind. But, my 12 year old still pretty much accepts what I say. So, I'd like to correct any egregious errors in my conclusions.
It's almost impossible to do so within in my own denomination, since simply discussing openly the questions I would like to pose raises formal doubts whether the person discussing those issues with me can legitimately continue to hold office. At least two PCA ministers avoid talking with me, for precisely this reason: if they concede almost any point to me, they are duty-bound to report themselves to Presbytery!
So, again, my question is this forum, a place where I can discuss such issues? I'm not, for my own sake, all that interested in debating with non-Xians. Frankly the arguments seem so weak and so intrinsically self-annihilating, that it's hard for me to imagine ever being persuaded by them.
Keeping in mind that I don't want to start a debate in THIS post, some examples of the questions I'm interested in include:
- + Is inerrancy a property that can meaningfully adhere to ANY expression embedded in human language?
+ Is the doctrine of "sola scriptura" inherently incompatible with the fact that the canon was determined by men's votes?
+ Does acknowledgment of the canon imply at least minimal acceptance of the authority of the "Magisterium"?
+ In practice, does my position of "authoritative, but not inerrant" differ from the current formal definition of "inerrant in the original manuscripts", ie, 'wet-ink' inerrancy?
+ Is it not dishonest for those who espouse wet-ink inerrancy to refer to an inerrant Bible (or Scriptures), given that such a thing has never existed, since no Bible has been made up solely of original manuscripts?
+ Is it true that so-called "denominational distinctives" would evaporate without a practical belief in an inerrant Bible, since most of those distinctives depend on just a few verses.
+ Is it not true that, while core elements of most key Christian practices are determinate, denominationally specific interpretive elements are uncertain, and thus not a proper object of faith? (Ie, all Xians believe we should participate in communion / Mass / the Eucharist, but hardly any agree on what is taking place invisibly when we do so. Thus, all are able to obey, do what Christ commanded, but none are able to know what happens when we do so.)
+ And, so on . . .
GaHillBilly
