I must admit before going too far into this subject that I’m a Biblical and evangelically minded individual that accepts the canon of my forbears (not without stipulation and corollary, mind you, but I’m not going to change my religion because someone else says “there are many paths to the same God” or some other happy horse-apples). This is not to say that other things are not great and that truth cannot be found elsewhere (other religions, other writings not religious in format and content or nature). But as my “rule (canon) for doctrine and practice” I have chosen the Bible.
I am not oblivious to the non-scientific culture and backdrop in which we find every prophet’s writing. Northwest Semitic philology is critical when researching Biblical text and theology. Take for instance the use of literary conventions, imagery, parable and tale and the work of understanding the ancient Biblical physiography (What the “structure” of the Biblical raquia (firmament), heaven, hell and worlds and ages are). One really has to open up to the ancient men who wrote (or "gathered" in the case of Moses and the Chronicler and others) the materials that went into the texts. Somewhere above (I think it was Geisha) it was mentioned that the Biblical model of inspiration was not Koranic in nature (dictation) and further it was not automatic writing or any situation where God “took over” the fingers of the prophet and pushed it around the pages of papyri (like that alliteration?). Exploring the intricacies of the relationship between prophet (immediate or secondary author) and the Primary (or Ultimate) Author is something that engenders discussion.
And in my humble opinion, any theory of “inspiration” that tries to write out the human side of the picture is hopelessly bankrupt.
I think that we're getting somewhere defining inerrancy (or accepting others' already existing definitions) as being something other than what we were taught in TWI. Inerrancy in the message, rather than looking for inerrancy in scientific detail. I might suggest that grafting the TWI viewpoint onto what others' are saying here is not honest...in the same category as Wierwille's chronic mischaracterization of what Trinitarians and Christians in general believed.
“there are many paths to the same God” or some other happy horse-apples).
You just can't help being insulting, can you? I make an effort not to refer to the bible has "happy horseapples" or some other euphemism, sometimes I wonder why I bother.
This is not to say that other things are not great and that truth cannot be found elsewhere (other religions, other writings not religious in format and content or nature).
I think you bother because you are a good person and that is not defined by what anyone else believes or says. . . .
Just a bit thin-skinned today G
Anyway, I'm leaning a bit about a different way to view inerrancy, focusing on the message, rather than the details. After all as was mentioned before, the science that we take for granted today was not even thought of, much less developed in the biblical era. I like the reference to the biblical concept of inspiration being "non-Koranic". I had not considered that before, even though I knew that the Koran is considered by its adherents to have been perfectly transmitted to Muhammed without regard to his grammar, literacy etc. - that it was in fact in existence in its entirety before it was written down.
In some respects (just some - not all!)this is not that far removed from my own view of the bible these days, although admittedly from a non-Christian POV. I believe that the bible was written in great part by people who were moved to put their experience of or with the divine into writing. Not that they were dictated a text to scribble out. Where I differ is that I don't believe that the experience of the writers of the bible is necessarily the universal path.
I think that the TWI view of inerrancy skewed our view of what it is or could be. Let's not fall into the trap of believing that TWI's take was representative of what Christians believe.
Anyway, I'm leaning a bit about a different way to view inerrancy, focusing on the message, rather than the details. After all as was mentioned before, the science that we take for granted today was not even thought of, much less developed in the biblical era. I like the reference to the biblical concept of inspiration being "non-Koranic". I had not considered that before, even though I knew that the Koran is considered by its adherents to have been perfectly transmitted to Muhammed without regard to his grammar, literacy etc. - that it was in fact in existence in its entirety before it was written down.
In some respects (just some - not all!)this is not that far removed from my own view of the bible these days, although admittedly from a non-Christian POV. I believe that the bible was written in great part by people who were moved to put their experience of or with the divine into writing. Not that they were dictated a text to scribble out. Where I differ is that I don't believe that the experience of the writers of the bible is necessarily the universal path.
I think that the TWI view of inerrancy skewed our view of what it is or could be. Let's not fall into the trap of believing that TWI's take was representative of what Christians believe.
Just my opinion here. . . I know you come at it from a differing POV.
And, I think that is exactly what happened. . . . a skewed view of scripture. At least for me, it was as if God lived in the book. I knew God only through the book. . . . . and that didn't help because it was only my understanding of the book influenced by TWI. . . . which I couldn't understand fully until I took the next class. . . . then the next class and so on.
I don't really understand what the concept of the originals being perfect really means. I am not kidding. I honestly don't understand. Perfect how? Compared to what? As an aside, perfect, whatever that means, is not going to change the message or the things in there that are uncomfortable and alarming. The rain is still going to fall on the just and the unjust. . . He is still going to discipline the ones He loves. . . . everyone still gets a shot at their three score and ten years. . . . He is still willing to forgive someone who maybe has worse sins than me.
It is what it is and the perfection is in the truth of it. The scriptures are not God. . . . I believe they are His witness or testimony of Himself revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. . . . . who He Himself said was the truth. I believe the scriptures are true and if they are true than I guess you could say perfect in that regard?
God never gets perfection in imperfect humans. It is how He perfectly carries out His will through imperfection. That is what glorifies God. Taking something imperfect and using it for His perfect accomplished will. At least that is how I am looking at it. . . . and that is a perfect mouthful. :)
Look at the great people He has used in the past. . . . Caiphas for one, Peter, Baalam, most of His prophets were disobedient at one time or another. Moses murdered. . . . and could barely speak. Aaron was melting gold and making cows. . . . Sampson, David, Solomon. . . . . who besides Jesus is perfect in the scriptures?? Yet, God still manages to perfectly carry out His will.
Language isn't perfect. .. . . we are severely limited in articulating those things we understand about God. He chose an imperfect form of communication, but stills manages to testify of Himself.
I do not get the whole perfect ink and paper thing. . . . there is no possible way to perfectly declare God. . . except in the person of Jesus Christ.
Just to add, I think Muslims believe the Koran to be the exact representation of God. . . . which is why it is not translated. . . . or it is frowned on. . . . . I kind of think that is what we did with the bible in TWI. That it was the representation of God instead of the witness or testimony of Jesus Christ.
I think that we're getting somewhere defining inerrancy (or accepting others' already existing definitions) as being something other than what we were taught in TWI. Inerrancy in the message, rather than looking for inerrancy in scientific detail. I might suggest that grafting the TWI viewpoint onto what others' are saying here is not honest...in the same category as Wierwille's chronic mischaracterization of what Trinitarians and Christians in general believed.
You just can't help being insulting, can you? I make an effort not to refer to the bible has "happy horseapples" or some euphemism, sometimes I wonder why I bother.
Yes...I read this part too.
Oak,
I wasn't speaking to insult you or anyone else. I’m just expressing my opinion about the "many paths" thing. You may believe that. If you truly believed that the Bible was "happy horseapples" I'd think you'd have the honesty to say so. I wouldn't hold back an opinion like that.
It appears to me, at least, that you have some interest in the "doctrine" of Bible inerrancy or inspiration and the fact that you’re interested in the "message" over the "details" is fascinating. I'm a bit more ambitious about the text and feel that the rudiments are just as important as the message, else the message is blurry and very touchy-feely. I realize there’s that “spirit” and “letter” thing happening (and that context in 2 Corinthians ought to come up here in the not too distant future) and I’ve got to think that there’s that tender balance the Jesus showed, that Paul and Peter showed. But on the other hand, when they dealt with the religious hierarchy and others who diverged from the truth there were words out of the mouth such as “you are like whited sepulchers” and “I have delivered (them) unto Satan”. They were opinionated men.
Certainly the TWI view of inerrancy is not what all Christians believe, but it is quite representative of the Evangelical branch. I have this ongoing “conversation” with my father’s wife about all this. She goes to church much more than me and faithfully sings in the choir, gives to (insert country) refugees and the Sierra Club, engages in structured church activities (all of this is great stuff, BTW) and yet cannot understand my brand of devotion. She’s a good woman. I’m not her idea of a Christian. She holds a very low opinion of the Scriptures, but likes a certain representation of Jesus; the one who “who went about doing good”. She merely forgets the rest of that statement from Peter’s lips, “and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.” There is no devil in her world. All I can say is that she is missing a great deal because she cannot read the simplest of truths.
Biblical interpretation and application (the reason anyone here might even be remotely interested in this stuff) are based on the text…all of the text. The message, IMHO, is not full and meaningful unless the entire scope is understood and applied. It takes some degree of work after one has believed.
As I mentioned in another thread, I’m thinking there must be a better word than “perfect” for the Scriptures; that kinda goes without saying. Working out how they apply because of what they say, might be a better gauge of what they are. Is that a word?
As I mentioned in another thread, I'm thinking there must be a better word than "perfect" for the Scriptures; that kinda goes without saying. Working out how they apply because of what they say, might be a better gauge of what they are. Is that a word?
RE
That makes it much clearer to me! :) Thanks for that. . . . there is a connotation, I guess, with the word perfect. .. a holdover from TWI that trips me up,
Like I said upstairs, I think that the word "perfect" communicates as well as any other. The way I look at it, especially after reading a few of the recent posts by you and Geisha, the original text, if one accepts inspiration and/or inerrancy, while not dictated by God, certainly had his "stamp of approval".
You know, as far as being insulted goes, some days I just have a thin skin. The majority of posters here are Christians, but not all of us, and sometimes I just feel the need to remind folks - hellooooooo...disbelievers here...hellooooo - I've been around here since almost day one and have a respectful rapport with Christian posters, Geisha among them, who aren't surprised by the contributions from the pagan at the back table...one of the reasons that I get involved in doctrinal discussions is to better understand how I got sucked in back in 1978 when I first was exposed to The Way...as most GSers can tell you I often contribute some good stuff to these discussions...despite being headed straight to hell (but Geisha is praying for me...thank you sister G! )
What is inspiration? People are inspired all the time . . . musicians, artists, poets, actually people in a great many fields. . . . . we know what inspiration is . . . but, it is a very difficult concept to convey in language. People call it being "moved". . . . we still use the term "moved". . . . I was really moved to do so and so. It does imply something outside of ourselves propelling us to create or act in a certain manner. But, isn't it is still us doing the creating or acting? Our own talent, our own ability, our own use of language, our education, and our producing something as a result of being inspired. Being moved.
All scripture is inspired . . . . not dictated. . . . holy men of spoke as they moved by the Holy Spirit. Those words and concepts are familiar enough to us to understand. Inspiration and being moved is a part of being human. They even give us the specific of what moved or inspired them to write about God. It was God. He inspired people. . . . to relate Himself to people. He condescended to use imperfect language and imperfect humans so that we could understand.
Okay . . . that is actually a perfect choice . . . LOL I am cracking myself up here.
The emphasis isn't on the specific words being used. . . . words can be substituted and have the same meaning. Funny, we call it the bible. . . . yet that word is not even in the bible. . .
And. . . scripture conveys a specific message. . . . the perfect or true message about why we are here. . . . what our relationship to God is and can be, the whys of it all are answered. . . . and most importantly about a specific person. . . who was going to declare and personify Him for us. . . . who was going to come. .. step into humanity . . . condescend. . . . so that He could ultimately relate Himself to us and reveal what He is like. What did He end up doing? Dying for us. Geeze, Jesus tells us more about what it means to be human than anything IMHO. God Himself teaching us what it all means and can be.
We may not like the message, but honestly, I think given our past approach to it in relating to the scripture and not the person . . . . we missed the message.
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
The context of these words are from Deut 8 . . . . and God feeding Israel supernaturally. The miracle was that even though they had no food, God supplied their nourishment. He "spoke" the food into being. It is not a contrast between spiritual food coming from the bible and food for the body supplied in a physical way.
Satan was trying to get Jesus to use His authority (do a miracle) and not depend on God for His nourishment.
TWI had a really trite and controlling exegesis for this verse IMO and missed the deeper meaning of Jesus not using His prerogative as the Messiah, but enduring humiliation and remaining humble. . . . also in conducting Himself like a man should in depending on God for His sustenance.
These were Messianic temptations. . . "If thou be the Son of God".
Jesus used His authority at other times. . . turning water into wine. . . calming the seas. . . but, this was a contrast between how Adam acted and how he should have acted. Jesus fixed it.
If it was about the bible. . . . Moses could have told the Israelites. . . . when they said they were hungry. . . Go read for an hour! Instead he asked God to give them some bread and shut them up. . . . not give me a few sayings to keep them quiet.
The scriptures make a lot more sense to me now that Jesus is the focus instead of missing in action.
(but Geisha is praying for me...thank you sister G! )
Yeah, we want to open up THAT can of worms again and have a three week discussion on the evils of Geisha praying for the heathen! Let's just say . . . my knees are wearing thin. . . . I have just about lost my voice and I know how to say your name with my eyes closed and hand folded. :)
Thanks, RE, for inviting me over to this thread, and thank you too, Waysider, for helping me figure out how to get here. In this post, I don't want so much to tell you what my views on inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture are, but to lay the foundation for doing so by telling HOW I came to my current interest in the Bible.
When I was a grade schooler, my Mom took us to Sunday school and church. Not every Sunday. Just often enough for me to be embarrassed that I hadn't known to memorize the verses the other kids were memorizing. She told us that we could make up our own minds about going when we reached junior high school (called "middle school" these days).
I do remember listening to a sermon on Acts chapters one and two on one particular Sunday, and wondering what the heck was going on. It was a very small United Church of Christ congregation, and the minister was using the King James Version, so I was hearing about "the Holy Ghost". My expertise on ghosts at the time was derived from Casper the Friendly Ghost comic books. I knew Jesus had died not long before the beginning of the book of Acts, so I figured the Holy Ghost was Jesus' ghost come back to haunt the world. That was the extent of my theological thinking as a child.
When I reached junior high, I stopped going to church. I also became very interested in the books of H.G. Wells, including his "Outline of History". There was no "History Channel" back then. Without even realizing what I was doing, I accepted the materialist view of life.
When I went to college, I attended a denominational school, not because of any denominational affiliation, but because it was located in my home town and my Dad wouldn't have to pay housing expenses. As a degree requirement I had to pass nine hours of religion courses. I took three hours of Old Testament and three hours of New Testament. Those classes were pretty tolerable. For the most part, we simply read the Bible. The instructor, Dr. Marie Strong, bless her memory, taught a bunch of stuff about "J", "P", "E" and "D", and I figured the Bible must have been put together by an insane editor. (I learned some important life-lessons from Dr. Strong, though, in her side stories to the lectures!) Next, I took three hours of Christian Beliefs, but I flunked that class for arguing with the instructor. I had to make up three hours, so I took Biblical Archaeology. That was one of the best classes I ever took! I was an art major, and I learned more about what art is from that archaeology class than from all my art apprish classes combined. Biblical Archaeology was taught by a crusty old Dutch professor who had been hauled off to Berlin as a boy to work as a slave in a Nazi bakery. He could make the Bible stories about the Assyrians LIVE!
When birthdays were pulled in the first draft lottery in 1969, mine came up #8. I knew I was gonna go, so I enlisted in the Navy. (I am presently working to finish a bachelors degree, all these decades later.) I came away from that first round of college thinking that Jesus had said some pretty profound things. I had read the Bible as an adult, but I didn't understand or trust it. My materialism had been shaken by then, and I started studying Edgar Cayce. I thought of Jesus as just another one of the ascended masters. A ouija board told me that I was Jesus reincarnated, but I KNEW that was hogwash...
(I'm not going to be able to tell everything I have to tell in one sitting. It's time to take my insulin and give the cat his shot, too, so I'll come back later and finish this. After that, I will be able to launch into the topic of inspiration and inerrancy along with the rest of you)
Yeah, we want to open up THAT can of worms again and have a three week discussion on the evils of Geisha praying for the heathen! Let's just say . . . my knees are wearing thin. . . . I have just about lost my voice and I know how to say your name with my eyes closed and hand folded. :)
And I too am performing sacrifices of small animals on your behalf...that reminds me, I need another canister of propane and some BBQ sauce....
Why don't we break this discussion down some? I don't know as much as all of you ex-TWIers so here's my first question:
What is the inerrant number of books in the canon of the Holy Christian Bible, 66 or 72?
Most of us would probably say 66, but the Catholic church says 72.
If the Catholics say that six apocryphal books belong in the canon, are they wrong?
It would seem that somebody is errant.
Now that is a good question!
Were the authors of the so-called apocryphal books inspired? Was Joseph Smith inspired? Or, on a less controversial note, what about the writings of the Church Fathers and other theologians "accepted" by the mainstream? Were they inspired in their writings?
And I too am performing sacrifices of small animals on your behalf...that reminds me, I need another canister of propane and some BBQ sauce....
Oh please.. . . you are probably a card carrying member of PETA and a vegan!
I love all of God's little furry creatures with the exception of mice, rats, and rodents in general . . . . if you feel you must. . . . . have a go at them. :)
What is the inerrant number of books in the canon of the Holy Christian Bible, 66 or 72?
According to Way theology, the extra books, as well as The Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., are "counterfeit". Not in the manner that a piece of currency is deliberately faked, but in the manner of not being directly inspired by God. They don't fit neatly into the "inerrant" format of the rest of the canon.
Oh please.. . . you are probably a card carrying member of PETA and a vegan!
I love all of God's little furry creatures with the exception of mice, rats, and rodents in general . . . . if you feel you must. . . . . have a go at them. :)
Any serious discussion of how to word the terms “inspiration” or “inerrancy “ in a proposal that fits the Biblical evidence must first be set in the Ancient Near East (ANE). I have found that scholars of a former generation and who have written on the subject are often not comfortable with the data that has been unearthed since, let’s say, the finds at Ugarit (early 20th Century) or those even of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947). Often I find the wooden definition of “inerrancy” couched in terms of God pushing around the fingers of the prophets. I alluded to this above when I said that the Bilble itself does not ascribe to the dictation method (aka in theological circles as “God alone”), except, I must say, in a few instances such as with Baruch and Jeremiah and I’m sure a few others.
I’m convinced this idea that God was the only one involved in the process is a product of the “God is in control” theology and doesn’t allow for the human element. I’m an open theism kinda guy (God changes). But folks this inspiration thing happened with humans (remember I’m Evangelical, conservative and Biblical) over a short period of time, with a pre-scientific world-view, in a localized culture, etc. It is a providential thing that occurred here. Below I’d like to list a couple of things that a man, with similar background and a bit more education than I, has said. Maybe there will be discussion.
“God directed writers to build arguments or polemic material using pagan literature. This was deemed an effective mode of communication to accomplish the divine purpose”.
“God directed the authors of Scripture to, at times, advance arguments or theological points using the pre-scientific (non-scientific) worldview of the authors. God did not choose to correct pre-scientific ideas to do this. At other times, this worldview comes through in material that doesn’t have any deliberate polemic purpose or theological point (it’s just there), but that is God’s choice”.
“God directed the human authors to utilize literary conventions common to the rest of the literate world of antiquity – covenant / treaty formulas, genealogies, genres, apocalyptic, etc”.
Now, I think I might change “directed” to “allowed” (however we might take that in the permissive mode) because God be a pretty powerful guy can do a lot of things. Of course there’s his justice in creating “free will” beings who also make choices and mistakes and have a language all their own, who don’t live in a western culture and have no clue about the Big Bang (or do they?). This allowance leaves the literary conventions purely in the hands of the authors (who, BTW, might have thought it weird to have a totally unfamiliar world view shoved down their proverbial throats).
I have theories of why God chose a “people” (Israel) for Himself and protected their language the way he did (you won’t find much else in the ancient world written in Hebrew except for a few ostraca, the Gezer calendar (10th Century BC), the Shiloam inscription (8th Century BC) and the Shebna lintel (7th Century BC) for all you Wikipedia folks to check out); there are some good stories behind them. All of these are in the Hebrew of the dates above and represent the extent of really ancient Hebrew (they were written in stone) and they were not Biblical. There are two (2) reasons for this; the Hebrews copied their works from Moses on down and destroyed the original (not totally sure why, but I have some stories about Genizas (where they threw the old copies in the synagogues) that you might like to hear) and there was much memorization going on. Other cultures (the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Ugarit, Babylonian and even Egyptian) recorded much of their history (and mythology) in stone (tablets written in cuneiform (little wedge shaped pictographs that represent, at least today, the oldest known “writing system” in the world) and we have those works today; the real ancient ones (1st to 3rd millennium BC). The Hebrews wrote with an alphabet (revolutionary at the time). I have theories of that as well, but it does have to do with the writings themselves.
I do have a few questions about things you have said. . . . . please, please do not take this as being confrontational. I in no way mean it as such. You know that I am thrilled you are here. I plan on learning a great deal from you!!
You wrote (remember I'm Evangelical, conservative . . . . ) Could you clarify this a bit for me? From what I have read about your theology so far. . . . the two things, (Evangelical, Conservative. . . ) and your theology do not sync. I have navigated my way through the Evangelical world for years. The biggest litmus test Evangelicals have for determining if something like TWI is a cult. . . . is a denial of the trinity.
I take it from your posting you do not accept that Jesus Christ is God or the doctrine of the trinity.
Another thing Evangelicals do not accept is the idea of soul sleep. . . . or that God changes. . . . or in general annihilationism.
I am not dissing your theology, it used to be mine. . . . but, it is not an Evangelical conservative understanding. Did you use the term to mean something else?
The other thing I am confused about is this. You wrote Certainly the TWI view of inerrancy is not what all Christians believe, but it is quite representative of the Evangelical branch.
I am not seeing this either. Evangelicals have a VERY Christ centered theology. . . . the Chicago Statement on inerrancy was Norm Geisler's puppy. . . . He is the most staunch defender of inerrancy in Evangelical circles. . . . but, I do not get the same meaning from him. He actually is very aware of VP and TWI .
"CES proudly notes that Christian apologists like Norman Geisler and Keith Tolbert believe that CES is open to dialogue. But is CES open to dialogue, or is this just a pose? STTIL says that “believers have been subjected to religious junk food, oppressive hierarchical systems, nonsensical doctrines and a mediocre spiritual existence”" http://www.precastco...ah7/rec_ces.htm
From Messiah Net's article Christian Educational Services The Evolution of a Splinter Group of The Way International. In case the link doesn't work.
Could you explain a bit how TWI's view on inerrancy is representative of the Evangelical branch?
I understand the terms TWI used may be the same, but they have a blaring discrepancy in meaning to my ears. I think we took the Evangelical understanding in TWI and turned it on its head! :)
But, I am not the brightest bulb, so any light you could shed on this would be genuinely helpful.
Thanks for the questions. I guess as we get to dialogue together we must put forth certain appearances so another understands from whence another comes (theologically). My use of “Evangelical” is merely to get me “in the door” so to speak, so others realize I’m a Bible-believing sort, an apologist for a fundamental Christian view (I’m probably going to have to explain “fundamental” too, eh?). I just did a quick google on Evangelicalism and the definition on Wikipedia will suffice for my basic views. And here the point below that counts is of course #3. I’d probably put it first, however.
· A belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
· Some expression of the gospel in "effort"
· A high regard for biblical authority
· An emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus.[2]
David Bebbington has termed these four distinctive aspects conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism, noting, "Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism."
My protestation against the Trinitarian analysis of God is only one of the characteristics of my theology that might offend the majority of Evangelicals, as you have rightly noticed, but your idea that the denial of “soul sleep” being, in the main, an Evangelical trait is not necessarily so. I have acquaintances who are Trinitarian and realize that the “dead” are… well…dead…until the resurrections/rapture.
Now, the idea that God changes is probably the newest “thing” in theological circles that the mainline Reformed theologians don’t like because it offends their Calvinistic sensibilities (predestination, etc.). But, similar to another historical theological movement, Arminianism (late 16th Century into the 17th), that also flew in the face of TULIP (the Calvinist credo), , the Open Theism movement (begun in the mid 1980’s, but with roots much earlier) is firmly Evangelical. There’s an interesting little insider’s battle back in 2003 (if you care to read) where certain members of the Evangelical Theological Society tried to have certain open theists removed from their ranks because of the “new” theology. Norm Geisler (maybe you’ve read his book Creating God in the Image of Man?) is one of the most outspoken opponents of the open theists, so I’m wondering if you might read some other Evangelical’s views on the subject before counting open theists out of the picture. Geisler actually quit the ETS after they did not vote Clark Pinnock out; a little theological petulance on his part, IMHO.
As to annihilationism being beyond the pale of Evangelicalism, I’d refer you to a great book by Edward Fudge (you probaby know this, but for all our eager readers…) called The Fire That Consumes. You’ll read an impassioned and very Biblical case for annihilationism from a great Evangelical (he has been a member of the Evangelical Theology Society for many years…since 1972).
So I’m glad you’re not “dissing my theology” and I’m sure you’ll get to know it better as we discuss various Biblical issues, but suffice to say (so you can better put me in the correct theological matrix) I’m:
1. Biblical (to the nth degree as you’ll see here on this thread)
2. Unitarian (as opposed to Trinitarian)
3. Dispensational
4. Charismatic (and make a distinction between the Giver and His gift)
5. A “dead are dead” kinda guy (call it “soul sleep”)
6. A “one baptism” kinda guy (and it isn’t water)
7. A believer in the devil/Satan/Lucifer/the dragon/the nachash, etc (in other words, I see the dichotomy in the heavens…and that you cannot proclaim a belief in the God of the Bible without acknowledging His alter ego)
8. An “old earth” creationist
9. An open theist
10. Hold that men and women were created equal (with both having dominion), then the Adversary stepped in and we went down that long, wrong patriarchal road (still on it in most churches), yet (thankfully) “in Christ” there is no longer distinction. Read Why Not Women? By Cunningham and Hamilton; it’ll change your life!
11. A “permanance of the new birth” kinda guy
12. An Hebraic (ANE) mentality kinda guy; as opposed to a Greek outlook on the Scriptures (inclusive of the Christian Scriptures, BTW…I think there was an Aramaic original…)
That’s the short list.
As for TWI not being “Christ centered”; that’s a matter of opinion. It is interesting to me, having come into TWI from the Jesus Freak faction of the Christian spectrum (late 60’s through early 70’s), that VP’s teachings ALWAYS used the word “Christ” or “Jesus Christ” (or for that matter “Christ Jesus”) and shyed away from just Jesus (I was a “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus” kinda guy for years before TWI). Certainly, from my perspective, this TWI methodology was a reaction against much of that emotional stuff that existed in Pentecostalism and the “Freak” movement (which isn’t Biblical in it’s expression either, BTW) and also an attempt to stay Biblical regarding the post resurrection Messiah (you know that dispensationalism is focused there). I’ve never done a search through the Pauline corpus for just the term “Jesus” (in exclusion from “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus”), but I’ll bet you won’t find many uses.
But TWI and VP were very “Christ centered”, just not in the way that Trinitarians are. Trinitarians use the three-in-one concept to extrapolate theologically (having also been one of their company for years and while in a conservative Bible college I have some knowledge…arguing with theologians can get you into hot water…). Seeing Jesus through those theologically rose-colored (or IMHO, opaque) glasses you’d expect the worship for the God rather than the more appropriate reverence for the man. But I see your point. I think TWI (corporately) went out of their way NOT to use the term “Jesus” alone and thereby skewed the view of his overall being. That was bad.
So how was TWI “representative of the Evangelical branch” view of inerrancy/ inspiration? See the first list above from Wikipedia if you would and certainly we can discuss the elements of “interpretation” used by TWI if you want (I really don’t care that much, but I will engage where I think I can help understanding the past and where it hurt or helped), since much of it was good in approaching the texts and may come up here in discussion.
So, my longwinded answer to your questions may not help in this thread, but you asked. As you may have noticed from my posts here (and on other threads), I moved on from TWI many years ago and don’t really want to go back (mentally or theologically). But if anything in my experiences there can clarify a text and thereby help it be applied in daily life, please ask away. It is often what I consider the measure of my worth.
Bob
PS - I just noticed that you revised your former thread so I'll try to get into it later. Hope this helps in the mean time.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
18
17
12
Popular Days
Mar 12
23
Mar 9
11
Mar 8
9
Mar 11
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 10 posts
Steve Lortz 18 posts
geisha779 17 posts
roberterasmus 12 posts
Popular Days
Mar 12 2010
23 posts
Mar 9 2010
11 posts
Mar 8 2010
9 posts
Mar 11 2010
7 posts
Popular Posts
pawtucket
No one is required to "answer" you. Quit goading others. You are more than welcome to your opinion as is everyone else on this board.
Sunesis
I'm not going to address whether people think they are inspired, inerrant or whatever, people will have their own opinion. I will just address what I think about the order of the NT cannon. Its just
Steve Lortz
James D. G. Dunn is just about the best current New Testament scholar I've found in my all too brief and spotty survey of the literature. He has written a number of good books. Two that may bear on re
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
To all (sorry I was away...),
I must admit before going too far into this subject that I’m a Biblical and evangelically minded individual that accepts the canon of my forbears (not without stipulation and corollary, mind you, but I’m not going to change my religion because someone else says “there are many paths to the same God” or some other happy horse-apples). This is not to say that other things are not great and that truth cannot be found elsewhere (other religions, other writings not religious in format and content or nature). But as my “rule (canon) for doctrine and practice” I have chosen the Bible.
I am not oblivious to the non-scientific culture and backdrop in which we find every prophet’s writing. Northwest Semitic philology is critical when researching Biblical text and theology. Take for instance the use of literary conventions, imagery, parable and tale and the work of understanding the ancient Biblical physiography (What the “structure” of the Biblical raquia (firmament), heaven, hell and worlds and ages are). One really has to open up to the ancient men who wrote (or "gathered" in the case of Moses and the Chronicler and others) the materials that went into the texts. Somewhere above (I think it was Geisha) it was mentioned that the Biblical model of inspiration was not Koranic in nature (dictation) and further it was not automatic writing or any situation where God “took over” the fingers of the prophet and pushed it around the pages of papyri (like that alliteration?). Exploring the intricacies of the relationship between prophet (immediate or secondary author) and the Primary (or Ultimate) Author is something that engenders discussion.
And in my humble opinion, any theory of “inspiration” that tries to write out the human side of the picture is hopelessly bankrupt.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I think that we're getting somewhere defining inerrancy (or accepting others' already existing definitions) as being something other than what we were taught in TWI. Inerrancy in the message, rather than looking for inerrancy in scientific detail. I might suggest that grafting the TWI viewpoint onto what others' are saying here is not honest...in the same category as Wierwille's chronic mischaracterization of what Trinitarians and Christians in general believed.
You just can't help being insulting, can you?Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I think you bother because you are a good person and that is not defined by what anyone else believes or says. . . .
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
RE,
no one cares to change any one's religion here
wtf did that come up for anyway
can't we discuss things that are not your religion?
or doyou not allow yourself to thinkoutside or diffeent then whatever you are claiming
which you have not stated by verse that you say you hold dear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Anyway, I'm leaning a bit about a different way to view inerrancy, focusing on the message, rather than the details. After all as was mentioned before, the science that we take for granted today was not even thought of, much less developed in the biblical era. I like the reference to the biblical concept of inspiration being "non-Koranic". I had not considered that before, even though I knew that the Koran is considered by its adherents to have been perfectly transmitted to Muhammed without regard to his grammar, literacy etc. - that it was in fact in existence in its entirety before it was written down.
In some respects (just some - not all!)this is not that far removed from my own view of the bible these days, although admittedly from a non-Christian POV. I believe that the bible was written in great part by people who were moved to put their experience of or with the divine into writing. Not that they were dictated a text to scribble out. Where I differ is that I don't believe that the experience of the writers of the bible is necessarily the universal path.
I think that the TWI view of inerrancy skewed our view of what it is or could be. Let's not fall into the trap of believing that TWI's take was representative of what Christians believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Just my opinion here. . . I know you come at it from a differing POV.
And, I think that is exactly what happened. . . . a skewed view of scripture. At least for me, it was as if God lived in the book. I knew God only through the book. . . . . and that didn't help because it was only my understanding of the book influenced by TWI. . . . which I couldn't understand fully until I took the next class. . . . then the next class and so on.
I don't really understand what the concept of the originals being perfect really means. I am not kidding. I honestly don't understand. Perfect how? Compared to what? As an aside, perfect, whatever that means, is not going to change the message or the things in there that are uncomfortable and alarming. The rain is still going to fall on the just and the unjust. . . He is still going to discipline the ones He loves. . . . everyone still gets a shot at their three score and ten years. . . . He is still willing to forgive someone who maybe has worse sins than me.
It is what it is and the perfection is in the truth of it. The scriptures are not God. . . . I believe they are His witness or testimony of Himself revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. . . . . who He Himself said was the truth. I believe the scriptures are true and if they are true than I guess you could say perfect in that regard?
God never gets perfection in imperfect humans. It is how He perfectly carries out His will through imperfection. That is what glorifies God. Taking something imperfect and using it for His perfect accomplished will. At least that is how I am looking at it. . . . and that is a perfect mouthful. :)
Look at the great people He has used in the past. . . . Caiphas for one, Peter, Baalam, most of His prophets were disobedient at one time or another. Moses murdered. . . . and could barely speak. Aaron was melting gold and making cows. . . . Sampson, David, Solomon. . . . . who besides Jesus is perfect in the scriptures?? Yet, God still manages to perfectly carry out His will.
Language isn't perfect. .. . . we are severely limited in articulating those things we understand about God. He chose an imperfect form of communication, but stills manages to testify of Himself.
I do not get the whole perfect ink and paper thing. . . . there is no possible way to perfectly declare God. . . except in the person of Jesus Christ.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Oakspear,
Just to add, I think Muslims believe the Koran to be the exact representation of God. . . . which is why it is not translated. . . . or it is frowned on. . . . . I kind of think that is what we did with the bible in TWI. That it was the representation of God instead of the witness or testimony of Jesus Christ.
Still working this stuff out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Oak,
I wasn't speaking to insult you or anyone else. I’m just expressing my opinion about the "many paths" thing. You may believe that. If you truly believed that the Bible was "happy horseapples" I'd think you'd have the honesty to say so. I wouldn't hold back an opinion like that.
It appears to me, at least, that you have some interest in the "doctrine" of Bible inerrancy or inspiration and the fact that you’re interested in the "message" over the "details" is fascinating. I'm a bit more ambitious about the text and feel that the rudiments are just as important as the message, else the message is blurry and very touchy-feely. I realize there’s that “spirit” and “letter” thing happening (and that context in 2 Corinthians ought to come up here in the not too distant future) and I’ve got to think that there’s that tender balance the Jesus showed, that Paul and Peter showed. But on the other hand, when they dealt with the religious hierarchy and others who diverged from the truth there were words out of the mouth such as “you are like whited sepulchers” and “I have delivered (them) unto Satan”. They were opinionated men.
Certainly the TWI view of inerrancy is not what all Christians believe, but it is quite representative of the Evangelical branch. I have this ongoing “conversation” with my father’s wife about all this. She goes to church much more than me and faithfully sings in the choir, gives to (insert country) refugees and the Sierra Club, engages in structured church activities (all of this is great stuff, BTW) and yet cannot understand my brand of devotion. She’s a good woman. I’m not her idea of a Christian. She holds a very low opinion of the Scriptures, but likes a certain representation of Jesus; the one who “who went about doing good”. She merely forgets the rest of that statement from Peter’s lips, “and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.” There is no devil in her world. All I can say is that she is missing a great deal because she cannot read the simplest of truths.
Biblical interpretation and application (the reason anyone here might even be remotely interested in this stuff) are based on the text…all of the text. The message, IMHO, is not full and meaningful unless the entire scope is understood and applied. It takes some degree of work after one has believed.
As I mentioned in another thread, I’m thinking there must be a better word than “perfect” for the Scriptures; that kinda goes without saying. Working out how they apply because of what they say, might be a better gauge of what they are. Is that a word?
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
That makes it much clearer to me! :) Thanks for that. . . . there is a connotation, I guess, with the word perfect. .. a holdover from TWI that trips me up,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
RE:
Like I said upstairs, I think that the word "perfect" communicates as well as any other. The way I look at it, especially after reading a few of the recent posts by you and Geisha, the original text, if one accepts inspiration and/or inerrancy, while not dictated by God, certainly had his "stamp of approval".
You know, as far as being insulted goes, some days I just have a thin skin. The majority of posters here are Christians, but not all of us, and sometimes I just feel the need to remind folks - hellooooooo...disbelievers here...hellooooo
- I've been around here since almost day one and have a respectful rapport with Christian posters, Geisha among them, who aren't surprised by the contributions from the pagan at the back table...one of the reasons that I get involved in doctrinal discussions is to better understand how I got sucked in back in 1978 when I first was exposed to The Way...as most GSers can tell you I often contribute some good stuff to these discussions...despite being headed straight to hell (but Geisha is praying for me...thank you sister G! 
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
What is inspiration? People are inspired all the time . . . musicians, artists, poets, actually people in a great many fields. . . . . we know what inspiration is . . . but, it is a very difficult concept to convey in language. People call it being "moved". . . . we still use the term "moved". . . . I was really moved to do so and so. It does imply something outside of ourselves propelling us to create or act in a certain manner. But, isn't it is still us doing the creating or acting? Our own talent, our own ability, our own use of language, our education, and our producing something as a result of being inspired. Being moved.
All scripture is inspired . . . . not dictated. . . . holy men of spoke as they moved by the Holy Spirit. Those words and concepts are familiar enough to us to understand. Inspiration and being moved is a part of being human. They even give us the specific of what moved or inspired them to write about God. It was God. He inspired people. . . . to relate Himself to people. He condescended to use imperfect language and imperfect humans so that we could understand.
Okay . . . that is actually a perfect choice . . . LOL I am cracking myself up here.
The emphasis isn't on the specific words being used. . . . words can be substituted and have the same meaning. Funny, we call it the bible. . . . yet that word is not even in the bible. . .
And. . . scripture conveys a specific message. . . . the perfect or true message about why we are here. . . . what our relationship to God is and can be, the whys of it all are answered. . . . and most importantly about a specific person. . . who was going to declare and personify Him for us. . . . who was going to come. .. step into humanity . . . condescend. . . . so that He could ultimately relate Himself to us and reveal what He is like. What did He end up doing? Dying for us. Geeze, Jesus tells us more about what it means to be human than anything IMHO. God Himself teaching us what it all means and can be.
We may not like the message, but honestly, I think given our past approach to it in relating to the scripture and not the person . . . . we missed the message.
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
The context of these words are from Deut 8 . . . . and God feeding Israel supernaturally. The miracle was that even though they had no food, God supplied their nourishment. He "spoke" the food into being. It is not a contrast between spiritual food coming from the bible and food for the body supplied in a physical way.
Satan was trying to get Jesus to use His authority (do a miracle) and not depend on God for His nourishment.
TWI had a really trite and controlling exegesis for this verse IMO and missed the deeper meaning of Jesus not using His prerogative as the Messiah, but enduring humiliation and remaining humble. . . . also in conducting Himself like a man should in depending on God for His sustenance.
These were Messianic temptations. . . "If thou be the Son of God".
Jesus used His authority at other times. . . turning water into wine. . . calming the seas. . . but, this was a contrast between how Adam acted and how he should have acted. Jesus fixed it.
If it was about the bible. . . . Moses could have told the Israelites. . . . when they said they were hungry. . . Go read for an hour! Instead he asked God to give them some bread and shut them up. . . . not give me a few sayings to keep them quiet.
The scriptures make a lot more sense to me now that Jesus is the focus instead of missing in action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Yeah, we want to open up THAT can of worms again and have a three week discussion on the evils of Geisha praying for the heathen! Let's just say . . . my knees are wearing thin. . . . I have just about lost my voice and I know how to say your name with my eyes closed and hand folded. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Why don't we break this discussion down some? I don't know as much as all of you ex-TWIers so here's my first question:
What is the inerrant number of books in the canon of the Holy Christian Bible, 66 or 72?
Most of us would probably say 66, but the Catholic church says 72.
If the Catholics say that six apocryphal books belong in the canon, are they wrong?
It would seem that somebody is errant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks, RE, for inviting me over to this thread, and thank you too, Waysider, for helping me figure out how to get here. In this post, I don't want so much to tell you what my views on inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture are, but to lay the foundation for doing so by telling HOW I came to my current interest in the Bible.
When I was a grade schooler, my Mom took us to Sunday school and church. Not every Sunday. Just often enough for me to be embarrassed that I hadn't known to memorize the verses the other kids were memorizing. She told us that we could make up our own minds about going when we reached junior high school (called "middle school" these days).
I do remember listening to a sermon on Acts chapters one and two on one particular Sunday, and wondering what the heck was going on. It was a very small United Church of Christ congregation, and the minister was using the King James Version, so I was hearing about "the Holy Ghost". My expertise on ghosts at the time was derived from Casper the Friendly Ghost comic books. I knew Jesus had died not long before the beginning of the book of Acts, so I figured the Holy Ghost was Jesus' ghost come back to haunt the world. That was the extent of my theological thinking as a child.
When I reached junior high, I stopped going to church. I also became very interested in the books of H.G. Wells, including his "Outline of History". There was no "History Channel" back then. Without even realizing what I was doing, I accepted the materialist view of life.
When I went to college, I attended a denominational school, not because of any denominational affiliation, but because it was located in my home town and my Dad wouldn't have to pay housing expenses. As a degree requirement I had to pass nine hours of religion courses. I took three hours of Old Testament and three hours of New Testament. Those classes were pretty tolerable. For the most part, we simply read the Bible. The instructor, Dr. Marie Strong, bless her memory, taught a bunch of stuff about "J", "P", "E" and "D", and I figured the Bible must have been put together by an insane editor. (I learned some important life-lessons from Dr. Strong, though, in her side stories to the lectures!) Next, I took three hours of Christian Beliefs, but I flunked that class for arguing with the instructor. I had to make up three hours, so I took Biblical Archaeology. That was one of the best classes I ever took! I was an art major, and I learned more about what art is from that archaeology class than from all my art apprish classes combined. Biblical Archaeology was taught by a crusty old Dutch professor who had been hauled off to Berlin as a boy to work as a slave in a Nazi bakery. He could make the Bible stories about the Assyrians LIVE!
When birthdays were pulled in the first draft lottery in 1969, mine came up #8. I knew I was gonna go, so I enlisted in the Navy. (I am presently working to finish a bachelors degree, all these decades later.) I came away from that first round of college thinking that Jesus had said some pretty profound things. I had read the Bible as an adult, but I didn't understand or trust it. My materialism had been shaken by then, and I started studying Edgar Cayce. I thought of Jesus as just another one of the ascended masters. A ouija board told me that I was Jesus reincarnated, but I KNEW that was hogwash...
(I'm not going to be able to tell everything I have to tell in one sitting. It's time to take my insulin and give the cat his shot, too, so I'll come back later and finish this. After that, I will be able to launch into the topic of inspiration and inerrancy along with the rest of you)
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Were the authors of the so-called apocryphal books inspired? Was Joseph Smith inspired? Or, on a less controversial note, what about the writings of the Church Fathers and other theologians "accepted" by the mainstream? Were they inspired in their writings?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Oh please.. . . you are probably a card carrying member of PETA and a vegan!
I love all of God's little furry creatures with the exception of mice, rats, and rodents in general . . . . if you feel you must. . . . . have a go at them. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
I see more books than one can count
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
According to Way theology, the extra books, as well as The Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., are "counterfeit". Not in the manner that a piece of currency is deliberately faked, but in the manner of not being directly inspired by God. They don't fit neatly into the "inerrant" format of the rest of the canon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks waysider
they don't fit neatly into the "inerrant" who
Is the Way some of expect?
I do not think so
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Any serious discussion of how to word the terms “inspiration” or “inerrancy “ in a proposal that fits the Biblical evidence must first be set in the Ancient Near East (ANE). I have found that scholars of a former generation and who have written on the subject are often not comfortable with the data that has been unearthed since, let’s say, the finds at Ugarit (early 20th Century) or those even of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947). Often I find the wooden definition of “inerrancy” couched in terms of God pushing around the fingers of the prophets. I alluded to this above when I said that the Bilble itself does not ascribe to the dictation method (aka in theological circles as “God alone”), except, I must say, in a few instances such as with Baruch and Jeremiah and I’m sure a few others.
I’m convinced this idea that God was the only one involved in the process is a product of the “God is in control” theology and doesn’t allow for the human element. I’m an open theism kinda guy (God changes). But folks this inspiration thing happened with humans (remember I’m Evangelical, conservative and Biblical) over a short period of time, with a pre-scientific world-view, in a localized culture, etc. It is a providential thing that occurred here. Below I’d like to list a couple of things that a man, with similar background and a bit more education than I, has said. Maybe there will be discussion.
“God directed writers to build arguments or polemic material using pagan literature. This was deemed an effective mode of communication to accomplish the divine purpose”.
“God directed the authors of Scripture to, at times, advance arguments or theological points using the pre-scientific (non-scientific) worldview of the authors. God did not choose to correct pre-scientific ideas to do this. At other times, this worldview comes through in material that doesn’t have any deliberate polemic purpose or theological point (it’s just there), but that is God’s choice”.
“God directed the human authors to utilize literary conventions common to the rest of the literate world of antiquity – covenant / treaty formulas, genealogies, genres, apocalyptic, etc”.
Now, I think I might change “directed” to “allowed” (however we might take that in the permissive mode) because God be a pretty powerful guy can do a lot of things. Of course there’s his justice in creating “free will” beings who also make choices and mistakes and have a language all their own, who don’t live in a western culture and have no clue about the Big Bang (or do they?). This allowance leaves the literary conventions purely in the hands of the authors (who, BTW, might have thought it weird to have a totally unfamiliar world view shoved down their proverbial throats).
I have theories of why God chose a “people” (Israel) for Himself and protected their language the way he did (you won’t find much else in the ancient world written in Hebrew except for a few ostraca, the Gezer calendar (10th Century BC), the Shiloam inscription (8th Century BC) and the Shebna lintel (7th Century BC) for all you Wikipedia folks to check out); there are some good stories behind them. All of these are in the Hebrew of the dates above and represent the extent of really ancient Hebrew (they were written in stone) and they were not Biblical. There are two (2) reasons for this; the Hebrews copied their works from Moses on down and destroyed the original (not totally sure why, but I have some stories about Genizas (where they threw the old copies in the synagogues) that you might like to hear) and there was much memorization going on. Other cultures (the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Ugarit, Babylonian and even Egyptian) recorded much of their history (and mythology) in stone (tablets written in cuneiform (little wedge shaped pictographs that represent, at least today, the oldest known “writing system” in the world) and we have those works today; the real ancient ones (1st to 3rd millennium BC). The Hebrews wrote with an alphabet (revolutionary at the time). I have theories of that as well, but it does have to do with the writings themselves.
I’m rambling….off to bed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Robert,
Very nice post.
I do have a few questions about things you have said. . . . . please, please do not take this as being confrontational. I in no way mean it as such. You know that I am thrilled you are here. I plan on learning a great deal from you!!
You wrote (remember I'm Evangelical, conservative . . . . ) Could you clarify this a bit for me? From what I have read about your theology so far. . . . the two things, (Evangelical, Conservative. . . ) and your theology do not sync. I have navigated my way through the Evangelical world for years. The biggest litmus test Evangelicals have for determining if something like TWI is a cult. . . . is a denial of the trinity.
I take it from your posting you do not accept that Jesus Christ is God or the doctrine of the trinity.
Another thing Evangelicals do not accept is the idea of soul sleep. . . . or that God changes. . . . or in general annihilationism.
I am not dissing your theology, it used to be mine. . . . but, it is not an Evangelical conservative understanding. Did you use the term to mean something else?
The other thing I am confused about is this. You wrote Certainly the TWI view of inerrancy is not what all Christians believe, but it is quite representative of the Evangelical branch.
I am not seeing this either. Evangelicals have a VERY Christ centered theology. . . . the Chicago Statement on inerrancy was Norm Geisler's puppy. . . . He is the most staunch defender of inerrancy in Evangelical circles. . . . but, I do not get the same meaning from him. He actually is very aware of VP and TWI .
"CES proudly notes that Christian apologists like Norman Geisler and Keith Tolbert believe that CES is open to dialogue. But is CES open to dialogue, or is this just a pose? STTIL says that “believers have been subjected to religious junk food, oppressive hierarchical systems, nonsensical doctrines and a mediocre spiritual existence”" http://www.precastco...ah7/rec_ces.htm
From Messiah Net's article Christian Educational Services The Evolution of a Splinter Group of The Way International. In case the link doesn't work.
Could you explain a bit how TWI's view on inerrancy is representative of the Evangelical branch?
I understand the terms TWI used may be the same, but they have a blaring discrepancy in meaning to my ears. I think we took the Evangelical understanding in TWI and turned it on its head! :)
But, I am not the brightest bulb, so any light you could shed on this would be genuinely helpful.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Geisha,
Thanks for the questions. I guess as we get to dialogue together we must put forth certain appearances so another understands from whence another comes (theologically). My use of “Evangelical” is merely to get me “in the door” so to speak, so others realize I’m a Bible-believing sort, an apologist for a fundamental Christian view (I’m probably going to have to explain “fundamental” too, eh?). I just did a quick google on Evangelicalism and the definition on Wikipedia will suffice for my basic views. And here the point below that counts is of course #3. I’d probably put it first, however.
· A belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
· Some expression of the gospel in "effort"
· A high regard for biblical authority
· An emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus.[2]
David Bebbington has termed these four distinctive aspects conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism, noting, "Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism."
My protestation against the Trinitarian analysis of God is only one of the characteristics of my theology that might offend the majority of Evangelicals, as you have rightly noticed, but your idea that the denial of “soul sleep” being, in the main, an Evangelical trait is not necessarily so. I have acquaintances who are Trinitarian and realize that the “dead” are… well…dead…until the resurrections/rapture.
Now, the idea that God changes is probably the newest “thing” in theological circles that the mainline Reformed theologians don’t like because it offends their Calvinistic sensibilities (predestination, etc.). But, similar to another historical theological movement, Arminianism (late 16th Century into the 17th), that also flew in the face of TULIP (the Calvinist credo), , the Open Theism movement (begun in the mid 1980’s, but with roots much earlier) is firmly Evangelical. There’s an interesting little insider’s battle back in 2003 (if you care to read) where certain members of the Evangelical Theological Society tried to have certain open theists removed from their ranks because of the “new” theology. Norm Geisler (maybe you’ve read his book Creating God in the Image of Man?) is one of the most outspoken opponents of the open theists, so I’m wondering if you might read some other Evangelical’s views on the subject before counting open theists out of the picture. Geisler actually quit the ETS after they did not vote Clark Pinnock out; a little theological petulance on his part, IMHO.
As to annihilationism being beyond the pale of Evangelicalism, I’d refer you to a great book by Edward Fudge (you probaby know this, but for all our eager readers…) called The Fire That Consumes. You’ll read an impassioned and very Biblical case for annihilationism from a great Evangelical (he has been a member of the Evangelical Theology Society for many years…since 1972).
So I’m glad you’re not “dissing my theology” and I’m sure you’ll get to know it better as we discuss various Biblical issues, but suffice to say (so you can better put me in the correct theological matrix) I’m:
1. Biblical (to the nth degree as you’ll see here on this thread)
2. Unitarian (as opposed to Trinitarian)
3. Dispensational
4. Charismatic (and make a distinction between the Giver and His gift)
5. A “dead are dead” kinda guy (call it “soul sleep”)
6. A “one baptism” kinda guy (and it isn’t water)
7. A believer in the devil/Satan/Lucifer/the dragon/the nachash, etc (in other words, I see the dichotomy in the heavens…and that you cannot proclaim a belief in the God of the Bible without acknowledging His alter ego)
8. An “old earth” creationist
9. An open theist
10. Hold that men and women were created equal (with both having dominion), then the Adversary stepped in and we went down that long, wrong patriarchal road (still on it in most churches), yet (thankfully) “in Christ” there is no longer distinction. Read Why Not Women? By Cunningham and Hamilton; it’ll change your life!
11. A “permanance of the new birth” kinda guy
12. An Hebraic (ANE) mentality kinda guy; as opposed to a Greek outlook on the Scriptures (inclusive of the Christian Scriptures, BTW…I think there was an Aramaic original…)
That’s the short list.
As for TWI not being “Christ centered”; that’s a matter of opinion. It is interesting to me, having come into TWI from the Jesus Freak faction of the Christian spectrum (late 60’s through early 70’s), that VP’s teachings ALWAYS used the word “Christ” or “Jesus Christ” (or for that matter “Christ Jesus”) and shyed away from just Jesus (I was a “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus” kinda guy for years before TWI). Certainly, from my perspective, this TWI methodology was a reaction against much of that emotional stuff that existed in Pentecostalism and the “Freak” movement (which isn’t Biblical in it’s expression either, BTW) and also an attempt to stay Biblical regarding the post resurrection Messiah (you know that dispensationalism is focused there). I’ve never done a search through the Pauline corpus for just the term “Jesus” (in exclusion from “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus”), but I’ll bet you won’t find many uses.
But TWI and VP were very “Christ centered”, just not in the way that Trinitarians are. Trinitarians use the three-in-one concept to extrapolate theologically (having also been one of their company for years and while in a conservative Bible college I have some knowledge…arguing with theologians can get you into hot water…). Seeing Jesus through those theologically rose-colored (or IMHO, opaque) glasses you’d expect the worship for the God rather than the more appropriate reverence for the man. But I see your point. I think TWI (corporately) went out of their way NOT to use the term “Jesus” alone and thereby skewed the view of his overall being. That was bad.
So how was TWI “representative of the Evangelical branch” view of inerrancy/ inspiration? See the first list above from Wikipedia if you would and certainly we can discuss the elements of “interpretation” used by TWI if you want (I really don’t care that much, but I will engage where I think I can help understanding the past and where it hurt or helped), since much of it was good in approaching the texts and may come up here in discussion.
So, my longwinded answer to your questions may not help in this thread, but you asked. As you may have noticed from my posts here (and on other threads), I moved on from TWI many years ago and don’t really want to go back (mentally or theologically). But if anything in my experiences there can clarify a text and thereby help it be applied in daily life, please ask away. It is often what I consider the measure of my worth.
Bob
PS - I just noticed that you revised your former thread so I'll try to get into it later. Hope this helps in the mean time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.