Posted on 04/12/2008 9:32:20 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that nothing is sacred. No thing. No part of creation is God. God is separate from the creation. Creation is only to be respected (made holy) as the handiwork of our God. It is never to be worshiped. This is why western civilization holds nothing sacred. Not king, not country, not flag, not clergy. This is the basis of our freedoms. The first ammendment rights are based on this idea. This is where the founding fathers got this stuff.
Fundamentalist evangelicals violate this basic principle every time the put the printed Bible ahead of God, ahead of Christ, or ahead of the Holy Spirit. The belief in the infallability of the printed Bible may be the worst heresy to affect the church today.
On page 2 of the May 14, 1996 issue of the Western Recorder, a local Kentucky Baptist periodical, is a report of comments made by Morris Chapman, president of the SBC Executive Committee at a gathering of Baptists from across North America. Another denomination's top executive asked him to state an "irreducible minimum for an evangelical theology." In response, Chapman is reported as saying, "I would have to say the word of God is absolute truth and . . . Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the Savior of the world." This is a very "tell tale" comment. Chapman lists his commitment to inerrancy before his belief in Jesus Christ. If Chapman had been in the prison at Phillippi with Paul when the jailer cried, "What must I do to be saved?" would he have responded, "Affirm inerrancy, and believe in the Lord Jesus?"
It is frequently argued that we must hold on to inerrancy because if we permit anyone to question any part of the Bible, the whole thing is lost. We will have no solid foundation to return to for answers in matters of faith. It is argued that unless we have an indisputable source of truth to return to, Christianity will be reduced to a matter of opinion. But I always thought that Christians came to an understanding of the truth through much prayer, study, and by being informed of the Spirit. I didn't know we could just look up the answers to all the hard questions. In fact there are numerous examples of Biblical passages which simply must be reinterpreted to apply to modern times (see examples in the section on Moral Legalism)
Of course the Bible is true. Of course it is the inspired word of God, but inerrancy is a red herring. Even if one grants inerrancy, it solves nothing. We still must rely on study and prayer, informed by the Spirit, to know the truth. Who's interpretation of the inerrant Word should we accept. For example, there are multiple views of the position of women in the church. One interpreter, (well known author and lecturer Mardi Keyes), who believes in inerrancy, reads the gospels and sees Jesus willingness to discuss matters of theology with women (John 4:5-32), and his encouragement of women to sit and learn with the men (Luke 10:38-42), as elevating women to be equal to men. In the context of a first century middle eastern culture these and other seemingly small incidents certainly do represent a radical change in the role of women, given the view that women were mere chattel (property), which was the norm in Jesus day. Other interpreters, who also believe in inerrancy, see only the passage where Paul says women should be silent in church (1 Timothy 2:12). Who's interpretation should we believe?
If holding to the position of inerrancy doesn't give us firm answers to hard questions, why do denominational leaders put such great importance on it. Only this: the inerrancy message is a thinly disguised version of "you may not disagree with me." The issue is power, control, and the right to dictate who may do what and when; to tell other Christians what they may and may not believe. This is so foreign to the message of Christ, that it should shock all true Christians.
As the old hymn says, "the Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord." The Bible is our primary source for knowledge about Christ, but it is not our foundation.
Of course his exegesis ("The Bible is our primary source for knowledge about Christ, but it is not our foundation." ) sounds a lot like Tradition to me.
Another gnat straining legalist attempting to be the holiest Christian in the room.
Mr. Falkenburg is forgetting that we can only know God through His infallable Word.
NOT A CHRISTOPHOBE
I think, therefore I am conservative.
You said: Mr. Falkenburg is forgetting that we can only know God through His infallable Word.
Says who? Where in Sacred Writ does it say that?
Are you saying, for instance, you can’t know God through His creation?
You wrote:
“Mr. Falkenburg is forgetting that we can only know God through His infallable Word.”
So we can’t know God personally, but only know Him by reading?
Did Adam and Eve know God even though they existed LONG BEFORE the Old Testament was written?
Did Moses know God from the burning bush or not?
Did the Apostles know God when they walked with Jesus or not?
Did the 120 in the upper room know God when the Holy Spirit came upon them or not?
Did early Christians - before the New Testament was written - know Christ, know the Father, know the Holy Spirit for real or did they just pretend because they didn’t have any new books yet?
I eagerly await your reply to these questions.
I’ve seen Bible worship. The San Diego house church youth group once required a gal to . . . I forget the details . . . I think not read her Bible for a week or a month or some such. She still got plenty of Bible in the meetings and knew plenty of it by heart.
At first, it was a shocking seeming excess, to me. But once I heard about her obsessively reading her Bible virtually every waking moment to the exclusion of needful daily life things—I felt the leaders were right. She came through it fine and was much more balanced after their prescription.
I may have had a touch of Bibliolatry in my youth. But I didn’t think the ink on paper was anything to worship. I reverenced Scripture as God’s Word . . . but I didn’t think there was anything particularly magical etc. about the ink on paper.
On the whole, I think the author of this article goes oveboard. Inerrancy is a valid belief. I don’t know what will filter out in eternity—but Christ sad not one jot or tittle would change etc. I realize that’s as in the original autographs.
But I’m convinced we have sufficiently accurate text on far more than ‘just’ the essentials to have confidence in the texts we have. They are plenty accurate to guide us in this life by His Spirit as well as see us to Eternity with God.
If eternity shows that some minor details were askew, it sure won’t rock my theology then. As for now, I believe in inerrancy.
Ping
Let’s just ask Mary.
How about the belief that even though everyone can read the Bible only a select few have the ability to understand it enough to interpret it.
There is such a thing as Bible worship and it is a heresy that is practiced by some King James Only advocates:
See: http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/unlearnd.htm
But the Bible is still the best source we have for Truth and the benchmark to test spiritual things to.
Good point! See Post#10.
You said: Let’s just ask Mary.
Good idea! Mary: “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5)
Or how about lets just keep it in its original Greek and Hebrew and not even let any of the peons have access to it like was done for 1500 years.
“The belief in the infallability of the printed Bible may be the worst heresy to affect the church today.”
The belief that the doctrines and testimonies in the Scriptures are not infallible is the worst heresy that affects the Church today and the number one reason for the great apostasy and falling away we have.
Agreed.
Or to worship it the way that the muzzies worship their fake piece of scripture. When you begin to worship it you can read all sorts of heresy into it as justification for whatever sect you wish to create.
You wrote:
“Or how about lets just keep it in its original Greek and Hebrew and not even let any of the peons have access to it like was done for 1500 years.”
How many peons could read during those 1500 years?
Considering Luther's German translation had over 100,000 in print and was read by millions, it seems there were quite a few peons out there.
Who kept the Bible in its original Greek and Hebrew for 1500 years?
You wrote:
“Considering Luther’s German translation had over 100,000 in print and was read by millions, it seems there were quite a few peons out there.”
Since he published his complete Bible in 1530s are you now changing your “1500” claim?
Also, Luther’s translation sold 100,000 copies over a 40 year time span. That averages out to 2,500 a year - it’s not great proof of common literacy.
You wrote:
“Plenty. Papyrus and ostraca evidence from Egypt indicate literacy was probably near universal in the ancient world.”
No. Evidence from Egypt would only tell us about Egypt and Egypt was under Muslim rule in the 7th century and had broken away from the Church before that. So, your info simply doesn’t help us.
“Literacy was probably far more widespread during the Middle Ages than is generally acknowledged.”
Maybe. It may have been twice as common as usually stated and that would still be under one fourth of the population total.
“Even peasant children attended school once a week or so during the winter months.”
In some places, at some times, but not for most of the Middle Ages, because schools were scarce and very expensive.
***There is such a thing as Bible worship and it is a heresy that is practiced by some King James Only advocates:***
Is it as bad as those who thinks the world hangs on the Sinaiticus, Vatacanus, and Alexandrian texts?
***The belief that the doctrines and testimonies in the Scriptures are not infallible is the worst heresy that affects the Church today ***
The problems began when St Paul said one thing and the later church fathers taught another.
“The problems began when St Paul said one thing and the later church fathers taught another.”
That’s exactly what I said.
Some of the KJVO lot think the 1611 translation is the inspired Word superior to the original texts. Anyone who wanders into this way of thinking usually ends up in error.
The problem is when we read it we have a tendency to see it in the way we have been taught in the past, that is, to ignore certain things and accept other things without question.
I often read books, and threads on FR, by other authors to break this “preaching to the choir” effect.
***Some of the KJVO lot think the 1611 translation is the inspired Word superior to the original texts.***
They really should take the time to read the origional preface to the KJV “From the translators to the Reader”.
As it says, the purpose of the translation was not to make a good bible out of some bad bibles, or even to make a particularly good one from some from all bibles, But to make a GOOD ONE BETTER.
I use the KJV because I understand it, but it is not the bee all to end all.
“Or how about lets just keep it in its original Greek and Hebrew and not even let any of the peons have access to it like was done for 1500 years.”
“Peons” in the East have had access to both the OT and the NT for 2000 years. You will note we had no “reformation”. But this is an inter-family Western fight so I’ll bow out now!
“Who kept the Bible in its original Greek and Hebrew for 1500 years?”
Greeks? Jews?
Perhaps that’s what he meant. But when he said “kept,” he later went on to imply he meant “limited only to” those languages (at least as I read it).
I don’t think the Hebrews and Greeks did that.
That’s the right attitude and I have a KJV version I use with others.
A good point. Kinda goes hand in hand with letting others tell you what to believe and think.
I often read books, and threads on FR, by other authors to break this “preaching to the choir” effect.
I couldn't agree more. For example, there are some very strong EO posters who never seem to be offended and it's actually good going back and forth. I find myself reading Scripture to be sure I understand something correctly.
“Perhaps that’s what he meant. But when he said “kept,” he later went on to imply he meant “limited only to” those languages (at least as I read it).
I don’t think the Hebrews and Greeks did that.”
Nope, in neither case. I can’t speak for whatever may have motivated the Jews to translate the OT, beyond the fact that so many of them read Greek, but they certainly did translate it. I can say that the Hellenes made a point of making sure that the OT and the NT were translated into local languages; even developed a written language for the Slavs in use to this day.
Geez and right after I posted a compliment about some EO posters.
Do you think that your not having a "Reformation" was because of a difference in the authority structure of your church, or because you were forced to be united because of the muslim control over most areas your church was located? I believe one of the leading causes for the Reformation was the lack of control over the church hierarchy either by the members of the church, or by competing churches.
You said: I find myself reading Scripture to be sure I understand something correctly.
And how do you guarantee you understand it correctly? Because it matches another person’s or group’s interpretation? Sounds like a man-centered approach to Sacred Scripture to me. A man-centered approach to Scripture interpretation will ALWAYS lead to error, heresy and endless different sets of beliefs.
It is only through the protection of the Holy Spirit that one is guaranteed authentic interpretation. And only in the Catholic Church is that guarantee present.
When Jesus Christ established the Church he guaranteed His protection to the Church to the end of time. Protection from error is never given to individuals to cover their personal interpretation of Scripture.
“It is only through the protection of the Holy Spirit that one is guaranteed authentic interpretation. And only in the Catholic Church is that guarantee present.”
That is a falsehood. We would not have had six popes declared heretics if this were so.
“Geez and right after I posted a compliment about some EO posters.”
Hey, you wanna play with Orthodoxers, you’ve got to get tough! I treat you the same way I treat my metropolitan! :)
“Do you think that your not having a “Reformation” was because of a difference in the authority structure of your church, or because you were forced to be united because of the muslim control over most areas your church was located?”
I don’t think the Mohammedans had much if anything to do with it. Its tempting to think it was something as “simple” as ecclesiology, but the profound differences between Western Reformed theology and that of Orthodoxy would point elsewhere.
Its purely a personal opinion, but since theology has an impact on ecclesiology, I’d say that the Christian theology of the East simply never gave rise to a Western style ecclesiology OR the theological problems the West encountered as The Church ran up against a powerful and aggressive Frankish monarchial system.
I think that is one of the reasons! It seems that the EO do not just obey. It seems that the clergy in the RCC have been elevated to a level where the congregation doesn't feel they can disagree.
...the profound differences between Western Reformed theology and that of Orthodoxy would point elsewhere.
Well, as HarleyD has pointed out, the RCC is moving more and more in your direction.
That is a falsehood. We would not have had six popes declared heretics if this were so.DV
This comes under the heading of "Balderdashnishness"! LOL! What's really weird is that these Romans actually believe this.
[Matthew 18:20]
Wouldn’t you even say that we see a lot of this Bible worship here on FR by Protestants?
Not all Romans believe these things. Many do and many do not.
Love that quote of Mary to the rest of mankind as well as the waiters at Cana.
“Do whatever He tells you.”
She is leaving everything in her son’s hands. In Jesus’ hands. Not hers.
And it was the Catholic Church who declared them “heretics.”
Period. No arguement. All within the
One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic
Church.
But the according same Catholic Church it is impossible for these Popes to become Pope without the power of the Holy Spirit. That is circular logic and double talk.
There are also some Popes from the past that are also deserving of such a declaration mainly from Elizabethan times 1550’s - 1680’s.
Not necessarily.
I think it’s hard to be individually, personally specific about it as it is the Maryolatry stuff.
If anything, the Maryolatry stuff is easier to identify and articulate because of the overt behaviors associated with it.
We don’t have Prottys bowing down to Bibles, lighting candles in front of Bibles; prostrating themselves in front of Bibles etc.
And, for Prottys, God’s Word Is Holy is a Scriptural, spiritual fact . . . not a Protty magicsterical pontification.
I don’t take the issue of Bibliolatry lightly. I just don’t see any where near the evidence for it—hereon or generally, that I do for Maryolatry.
Dr. E is a fierce proponent of Scripture as our foundation for Faith. But I have not observed in any of her posts nor in any of my FREEPMAILS with her any whiff of Bibliolatry. She respects God’s Word as God’s Word. But she worships only THE LIVING WORD, CHRIST JESUS. There’s a significant difference.
My friend in San Diego really had made the ink on paper an icon; a talisman, an object of adoration awfully close to worship, if not over that line. And, I was close at odd moments in my intensely lonely teens. But I think the requirement the group gave my friend—NO Bible reading for a week or month or whatever it was—might have been 3 months though I think it was only a month. She might have rebelled had it been 3 months. But she could see herself surviving a month.
And, at my worst, I recognized that the ink on paper was just ink on paper. That THE LIVING WORD was seated at the right hand of THE FATHER. etc.
I think these distinctions are hard to articulate. And, not easy to discern even face to face. But face to face they are much EASIER to discern.
I also do not observe on FR endless threads begun by posts of articles extolling the rapturous spiritually miraculous attributes of the ink on paper.
We sometimes have posts examining various aspects of various translations; various meaty benefits of this or that passage in Scripture . . . but all such is merely intellectual discourse about what GOD SAID—vs the magical worshipful aspects of ink on paper. The latter is never even approached at all—not a focus; not an interest; not the point, even remotely.
You can be sure, Dear Salvation, that had I a whiff of what I felt earnestly was seriously any aspect of idolatry of ink on paper, that I would have been as fierce toward that as I am toward the Maryolatry stuff.
Do you really doubt that????
That is abidingly shocking to me, that any sentient creature would believe such.
That is a falsehood. We would not have had six popes declared heretics if this were so.
= = =
Thanks tons for weighing in on the side of
Unrubberized Historical Truth and righteousness.
Perhaps I see it through different eyes then.
As a Catholic, and I have seen it happen again and again to other Catholics, SCRIPTURE is thrown at us. Repeatedly.
Sometimes long posts of Scripture.
To me, this represents what might be called bible idolatry.
It’s a matter of observiation and different eyes.
BTW, my posts are strickly to you, and I do not appreciate you posting your replies to a string of Protestants. Please don’t do that to me any more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.