Do the teachings of the Bible form a "seamless garment&

[Dimmesdale]

Is it the case that if one accepts "part" of the teachings of the Bible one must accept "all" of it? Or, conversely, if one rejects part of the Bible one must reject it all wholesale?

I myself do not understand why this should be the case.

However, Protestant theologian Gordon H. Clark writes:

"The claim to inspiration pervades the Bible throughout.

If Moses and the prophets were mistaken in making this claim, if the apostles likewise were deceived, and if our Lord himself entertained wrong notions of verbal inspiration, what assurance may anyone have relative to other matters about which they wrote? Is there any reason to suppose that men who were so uniformly in error as to the source of their message could have had any superior insight and accurate knowledge of man’s relation to God? Why should we today believe that God so loved the world or that a sinner is justified by faith, if it was not God who gave John and Paul this information? And finally, who can profess a
personal attachment to Jesus Christ and yet consistently contradict his assertion that the Scriptures cannot be broken? Therefore, one is limited to a very narrow choice. Either the Bible is a worthless fraud and Jesus was a deluded martyr, or the Bible is in truth the Word of God written.

When people see that they are shut up to these two choices, some of them - because they cannot deny the general trustworthiness of the Bible as evidenced by archaeology, and because they feel compelled to acknowledge its spiritual excellence - will be induced to accept plenary and verbal inspiration. Others, however, will choose the opposite. Recognizing more clearly that the teachings of the Bible form a seamless garment, they will in consistency reject the Bible in toto, repudiate its ideals, and look with pity or scorn on its deluded Messiah."

I still don't understand why the Bible cannot have some level of commonality in its totality, (such as the theme of guilt, which runs throughout human history) without it all being true and equally inspired.... I don't see why it has to be a "seamless garment" even though many or even most of its parts could be consistent with each other....

[Divine Insight]

Is it the case that if one accepts "part" of the teachings of the Bible one must accept "all" of it? Or, conversely, if one rejects part of the Bible one must reject it all wholesale?

I myself do not understand why this should be the case.

My view on this question becomes one of asking you what you mean by accepting teachings of the Bible?

Even for an atheist it could be that many teachings of the Bible are valid. The reason being that the Bible was written by men who were speaking about human behavior in general and therefore many of their observations concerning how people behave may very well be true, in general.

However, if you are asking whether the teaching of the Bible could be the inspired word of a God, then the question becomes quite different. Also, even if you allow that some of the teachings of the Bible might have been inspired by some supreme entity, you may reject other parts of the Bible. And perhaps even embrace the idea that some other spiritual writings may have also been inspired by a God. Perhaps the writings about Buddha, etc.

The problem is that none of that represent "Christian Theology".

Christian Theology is about a jealous God who has given mankind specific commandments, directives, and requirements lest they fail to obey him and thus have "sinned", in which case the penalty will be death, or far worse.

In this theology where the God is threatening to condemn those who fail to obey "His Word", then there cannot be any false, misleading, or ambiguous teachings in the Bible. Therefore, because this is a judgemental God who is threatening eternal damnation for not obeying his commandments and directives, there can be no room for erroneous, false, or misleading information in the Holy Texts that claim to speak for this God.

So from a Christian perspective the Bible must necessarily be the infallible word of God.

Note: It is true that many modern Christian sects (mainly Protestant sects) do not necessarily support that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. However, they have very serious problems then when it comes time for them to reveal which parts they are prepared to toss out. Typically they tend to cling to the entire Biblical Canon all the while they are claiming that it doesn't all need to be the word of God. That's a very serious problem for them whether they realize it or not.

For the Christian sects that retain the position that the Bible must be the infallible word of God in its entirety, they certainly have a more consistent theology. However, as you are probably aware, there are immense problems with trying to hold up the entire Biblical Canon to be the infallible Word of God.

So yes, this is a very controversial topic even among Christian Scholars.

I agree with the Christian Theologians who demand that the entire Biblical Canon "must be" the infallible Word of God if it is to stand up as a consistent theology.

However, I totally disagree that the entire Biblical Canon makes any sense as being the infallible word of any single sane God.

Therefore I reject the entire dogma as being obviously not the word of any God. As far as I'm concerned it was never anything more than the opinions of men no different from Greek Mythology or any other religions of the region.

[brianbbs67]

I believe God gave us a brain to discern truth from fallacy. The Bible, as put together, is a great guide on how to live righteously. But, there are obvious errors or differences , especially in the NT. Our God is a personal one. He's a little different with every different person. He made different covenants with various peoples. Balak and Baalam come to mind, first. The Isrealites and Balak and Baalam both worshipped God. And God talked to both. Baalam was a wonder worker and did many great things in the name of the Lord.(Tanakh quote).

But, God chose the Isrealites over the Moabites and told Baalam to let them pass and not curse them. Who knows why He does as He does? But, it is clear from this early passage, God is in contact with others than Isreal.

I believe the tenants of the bible are true. Do good, be good. And defer to the almighty.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Dimmesdale]

Indeed. Jesus failed prediction for his return (Matthew 16.28) does not invalidate the benefit of abiding by the Golden Rule, it's eternal and universal truth. To see the Bible either as a "Seamless Garment" or totally worthless is categorical thinking, and intellectually lazy. Jefferson realized this and took an instinctive approach in sorting it all out and came up with the "Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". And historical Jesus scholars have employed a more systematic and academic approach in determining and distinguishing the "Christ of Faith" from the Historical Jesus.