As I posted before, I would like to offer a positive exposition of some of the ideas I've come to hold as an orthodox, but post-evangelical (in the American sense) Christian, so that those ideas can be challenged and criticized by other believers.
There seem to me to be three places I could begin, but I've found it difficult narrow it down further. So, I've made a somewhat arbitrary choice, and will begin with the issue of the inerrancy of Scripture. In part, I'm beginning here, since the outcome of any future discussions will hinge in part on what role the Scriptures are allowed to play.
I will first make one observation regarding the definition of "inerrancy".
Many key Christian terms -- faith, hope, love, etc -- are difficult to define so that all will understand or agree. "Inerrant", as an adjective applied to any product of human speech is not troubled with any such difficulty. "Inerrancy" is a term which parallels the phrase, "not pregnant". And just as you can't be a 'little bit' pregnant, so you can't be a 'little bit' errant. The slightest, tiniest error dissolves "inerrancy". One "than" where "then" should go; one "1010" when "1001" is correct . . . and inerrancy disappears.
Key assertion:
+ The Christian Church has never at any time, nor at any location, possessed an "inerrant" Bible.
+ Observation: conservative theologians today, if they claim inerrancy, apply it only to what I've called the "wet ink manuscripts", and nothing else. Nevertheless, through a bit of what might be unconscious verbal legerdemain, they and their pastor students have left the majority of evangelical church goers with the impression that a belief in an inerrant Bible is a fundamental evangelical doctrine.
Secondary assertions:
+ An inerrant Bible is not intrinsically necessary for salvation. It it were, 1st century believers who NEVER possessed a complete Bible and who often (in the case of Gentile churches) had only a few apostolic letters, could never have been saved.
+ Inerrancy does not intrinsically rule out authority. Structural steel engineering handbooks are not inerrant, but they are quite accurate and thus reliable within limits.
+ The uncertainity intrinsic to "reliable engineering" demands that engineers use "safety factors", and thus design bridges that are 4x to 10x stronger than theoretically necessary, and work like dogs to avoid designs that contain single points of failure. Just so the loss of textual inerrancy dictates that the theological exegete can NEVER depend on a single verse for a doctrine, but must acknowlege that what is not understood by the Church to be found throughout the Scriptures is correspondingly uncertain.
+ The replacement of textual inerrancy with general authority leaves the fundamentals of doctrine, such as all things taught by the first three ecumenical creeds, untouched. But the loss of inerrancy ravages the special doctrines based on a few verses or a distinctive exegesis, and thus tends to eliminate so-called "denominational distinctives". All agree that we should "take Communion", or participate in "the Mass" or celebrate "the Eucharist". Few agree, and few verses make clear, what the internal meaning of that service really is. Thus, while the appearance of comprehension is stolen away without inerrancy, the possibility of obedience remains.
+ It is not known what God "could have done". Speculations of that kind reach further than does our knowledge or understanding. It is common to argue that God "could have" preserved the manuscripts or even the translations without error. Maybe so . . . or maybe what is asserted is an irrationality!
+ But even if we know that God "could have done" something -- and I don't think we do, unless He tells us -- that alone is neither proof nor evidence that He did do any such thing. Thus, even if it is true that God "could have preserved the manuscripts", the possibility does not prove the actuality.
GaHillBIlly
Inerrancy, and more . . .
Moderator: Moderators
-
GaHillBilly
- Student
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:46 am
