Fundamentalism and Inerrancy, are they so?

[polonius]

Frequently, I find a response merely quoting some scripture which the writer implies settles an argument.

Lets take a look at such a view.

Ihttp://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is-inerrancy-important/

Inerrancy: The Bible is without error. It’s a belief in the “total truthfulness and reliability of God’s words� (Grudem, Systematic Theology, Inter-Varsity, 2004, 90). Jesus said, “Your word is truth� (John 17:17). This inerrancy isn’t just in passages that speak about salvation, but also applies to all historical and scientific statements as well. It is not only accurate in matters related to faith and practice, but it is accurate and without error regarding any statement, period (John 3:12).

Inerrancy is based on the character of God who cannot lie (Heb. 6:18; Titus 1:2). God cannot lie intentionally because He is an absolute moral law-giver. He cannot err unintentionally because He is omniscient. And if the Bible is the written Word of God (and it is), then it is without error.

Thesis Statement: Philip Ayers
Scriptural inerrancy and Fundamentalism cannot be separated. Throughout history the inerrancy of Scripture has been the basic foundation of the Fundamental movement.

ttps://ariseministry.org/ariseministry/inerrancy__of_scripture___fundamentalism

[Tcg]

The perils of taking the Bible seriously.

The vast majority of those who take the Bible seriously but not literally do not handle snakes nor do they deliberately drink poison.

These Christians do and it is because they take the Bible seriously.

Even the snake handlers are a distinct minority within the population of Fundamentalist Christians.

Perhaps they are the ones who have found the narrow gate Jesus spoke of.

[Elijah John]

It is easy to question the wisdom of this display of faith, but the faith these folks place in God is hard to top. Very few truly risk their lives for their faith. These faithful Christians do so on a regular basis.

To what end? What good does it do anyone to handle poisionous snakes? Do you suppose the apostle James would approve? How does snake-handling feed the poor, or ease human suffering in any way? Faith without works is dead, faith for show is vain and a sham. And as Paul said about such faith-trumpeters, if they have not love, it is in vain.

Also, do you deny the probability that any of these theatrics are staged and fake? I never denied that some of them are real, and (needlessly) deadly. These people should not be held up as exemplars of "great faith".

[Tcg]

It is easy to question the wisdom of this display of faith, but the faith these folks place in God is hard to top. Very few truly risk their lives for their faith. These faithful Christians do so on a regular basis.

To what end?

You'll have to ask them.

What good does it do anyone to handle poisionous snakes?

Did you watch the video? You'll find the answer if you do.

Do you suppose the apostle James would approve?

Where does the author of James address this issue?

How does snake-handling feed the poor, or ease human suffering in any way?

Ask the author/authors of Mark.

Faith without works is dead, faith for show is vain and a sham. And as Paul said about such faith-trumpeters, if they have not love, it is in vain.

You've questioned their faith unjustly and now you are questioning their love? On what basis do you do so?

Also, do you deny the probability that any of these theatrics are staged and fake?

My statement addresses the Christians in the article I referenced and those in the video I provided a link to. Are you suggesting Jamie Coots faked his death?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by Tcg]

I am saying that handling snakes for it's own sake is not an expression of love, it does no one any good.

Regarding James, he was concerned about the practical, effectiveness of faith, concerned that it does others some good.

Regarding Coots, remember I never said that every example of snake handling was staged and fake. Only that some most probably are.

How is snake handling an expession of love, how does it do anyone any good? How does snake handling ease human suffering? On the contrary, seems it causes human suffering when it goes awry.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 13 by Tcg]

I am saying that handling snakes for it's own sake is not an expression of love, it does no one any good.

Who claimed it was "an expression of love"?

I ask again, did you watch the video? If you did, then you need to address the claims of those who practice it. If not, then your opinion can't possibly be based the lives of these faithful Christians who handle snakes as an expression of their faith in God and the Bible.

Regarding James, he was concerned about the practical, effectiveness of faith, concerned that it does others some good.

I asked where the author of James addressed the issue of handling snakes.

Regarding Coots, remember I never said that every example of snake handling was staged and fake. Only that some most probably are.

Then you need to provide evidence to support your claim that "some most probably are" and address how that evidence, were you to provide it, would change the fact that Jamie Coots died from a snakebite practicing the faith he had in both the Bible and God.

How is snake handling an expession of love, how does it do anyone any good? How does snake handling ease human suffering? On the contrary, seems it causes human suffering when it goes awry.

As I've already expressed quite clearly, you are asking these questions to the wrong person. I've provided clear evidence of what some faithful Christians do. If you don't like what they do, take it up with them.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 15 by Tcg]

Their "faith" if not fraud, is in vain. That's all. The practice in and of itself is vain. People who practice such things give Christianity a bad name, nevermind endangering themselves and others. It's called a "bad witness".

I don't need to see the video, I believe you. Waste of time. Over and out.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 2 by polonius.advice]

Mark 16:9-20 are not in the earliest manuscripts that we find. So no doctrine should be based on these verses.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 2 by polonius.advice]

Mark 16:9-20 are not in the earliest manuscripts that we find. So no doctrine should be based on these verses.

Exactly, they were added by a copiest in the late 190s, if I remember right. The earliest AND most reliable manuscripts of Mark stop at 16:8. No resurrection appearances, snake handling or poison. Google it and then do it again. It is common knowledge in the "scholarly" set. Wonder why , none of us are ever taught this at church? Maybe the whole Seek and ye shall find? In other words, if you are not seeking God and truth, it will be hard to find it. In fact, its very hard to find something if you never look.

This can only lead me to what Christ said a time or 3 to those he helped/healed,(with regard to the true poison drinkers and snake handlers). "Your belief has saved you".